solentstars Posted 9 February, 2011 Share Posted 9 February, 2011 so engrossed in it you are posting on here? because i,m reading your fantasy moral witch hunt nonsense why don,t you just come out of the closet ,we won 2-1 and i can multi task he he Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 9 February, 2011 Author Share Posted 9 February, 2011 because i,m reading your fantasy moral witch hunt nonsense why don,t you just come out of the closet ,we won 2-1 and i can multi task he he Oh so i've gone from an ignorant homophob to a closet homosexual in one thread have i? brilliant. It's not a moral witch hunt, you just keep lapping up everything the media tell you and fail to make up your mind for yourself. You'll fit in fine on here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
solentstars Posted 9 February, 2011 Share Posted 9 February, 2011 Oh so i've gone from an ignorant homophob to a closet homosexual in one thread have i? brilliant. It's not a moral witch hunt, you just keep lapping up everything the media tell you and fail to make up your mind for yourself. You'll fit in fine on here. so its the media telling me now a another classic load of nonsense Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 9 February, 2011 Author Share Posted 9 February, 2011 (edited) 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? Right, so saying to have find someone attractive and want to have sex with them is homphobic is it? Maybe i'm wrong I thought the basic concept of having sex with someone is finding them attractive, then as the realtionship grows you decide to have kids. Luckily for me i only have to sleep with women i find attractive, maybe you have to bang anything you can get hold of? It's not religion or repression. As i said above my sister and cousin are homosexual so not based on ignorance either. I know you might like to think it is because not everyone agrees with everything that is rammed down their throats and if you hav a more traditional view then you are accused of being a bigot, but its my opinion based on what is natural and good for the child. SOme of you will churn out your pathetic metaphors like "driving a car isn't natural". But is a simple fact of nature that two people of the same sex ****ging cant have a kid, so how can it be natural or right for them to raise one? If they were meant to raise them together then it they'd be able to produce them together. Edited 9 February, 2011 by Turkish Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deppo Posted 9 February, 2011 Share Posted 9 February, 2011 Can everyone just stop mugging themselves off Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lighthouse Posted 9 February, 2011 Share Posted 9 February, 2011 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. That's the whole point of a metaphor, it's different to what you're trying to explain. Tedious point, which I can't be arsed explaining any more. How about a pet dog. Two humans are not capable of conceiving a dog, so does that mean they are therefor incapable of caring for one? How about single parents? A person, male or female, cannot conceive on their own, so does that mean they shouldn't be allowed to raise children on there own? P.S. I'm not saying you're homophobic, but having gay relatives doesn't imunise you from being a homophobe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 10 February, 2011 Author Share Posted 10 February, 2011 (edited) That's the whole point of a metaphor, it's different to what you're trying to explain. Tedious point, which I can't be arsed explaining any more. How about a pet dog. Two humans are not capable of conceiving a dog, so does that mean they are therefor incapable of caring for one? How about single parents? A person, male or female, cannot conceive on their own, so does that mean they shouldn't be allowed to raise children on there own? P.S. I'm not saying you're homophobic, but having gay relatives doesn't imunise you from being a homophobe. I cant imagine a dog will get builled at school, have its picture in the media at every opportunity or be phsycholgically damaged because it's parents that are caring for it aren't dogs can you? You seem to have talent for making silly points without answering the questions dont you. Edited 10 February, 2011 by Turkish Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lighthouse Posted 10 February, 2011 Share Posted 10 February, 2011 I cant imagine a dog will get builled at school, have its picture in the media at every opportunity or be phsycholgically damaged because it's parents that are caring for it aren't dogs can you? You seem to have talent for making silly points without answering the questions dont you. Kids get bullied at school for being fat, ginger, wearing glasses, being from different ethnic backgrounds... many things. Yes there is a chance a child MIGHT get bullied but I don't think that should prevent gay people from adopting children. As for having his picture in the paper, I refer again to the Beckhams, Brad and Angelina, the Royal Family etc. If Elton's child is in the paper it's as much because he is famous as he is gay. 'Elton adopts baby' wont be news forever. Also I'm not making silly points, I'm drawing comparisons which you can't seem to comprehend. And what questions haven't I answered? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 10 February, 2011 Author Share Posted 10 February, 2011 (edited) Kids get bullied at school for being fat, ginger, wearing glasses, being from different ethnic backgrounds... many things. Yes there is a chance a child MIGHT get bullied but I don't think that should prevent gay people from adopting children. As for having his picture in the paper, I refer again to the Beckhams, Brad and Angelina, the Royal Family etc. If Elton's child is in the paper it's as much because he is famous as he is gay. 'Elton adopts baby' wont be news forever. Also I'm not making silly points, I'm drawing comparisons which you can't seem to comprehend. And what questions haven't I answered? No, i comprehend them. I just dont see how you can compare raising a child to driving a car and having a pet dog. I suppose if your child got badly hurt you'd just scrap it or have it put down and get another one rather than trying to make it better then? Edited 10 February, 2011 by Turkish Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 10 February, 2011 Share Posted 10 February, 2011 Elton should not be adopting children because he is a 63 year old male and acts like a spoilt child with a temper. End of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joensuu Posted 10 February, 2011 Share Posted 10 February, 2011 Elton should not be adopting children because he is a 63 year old male and acts like a spoilt child with a temper. End of. This I CAN agree with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gingeletiss Posted 10 February, 2011 Share Posted 10 February, 2011 Maybe i'm wrong I thought the basic concept of having sex with someone is finding them attractive, then as the realtionship grows you decide to have kids. Looking at some of the 'dogs' in Totton with 3 or 4 kids, I guess that concept is well wrong Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notnowcato Posted 10 February, 2011 Share Posted 10 February, 2011 Elton should not be adopting children because he is a 63 year old male and acts like a spoilt child with a temper. End of. It's not End of though is it. It's End of your supposed negative reasons as to why you believe he should not be able to adopt. Why not come up with some valid reasons as to why he should? Generous, compassion, loving relationship, talented, available resource for the child, lover of sport, charity worker etc etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 10 February, 2011 Author Share Posted 10 February, 2011 It's not End of though is it. It's End of your supposed negative reasons as to why you believe he should not be able to adopt. Why not come up with some valid reasons as to why he should? Generous, compassion, loving relationship, talented, available resource for the child, lover of sport, charity worker etc etc I am sure he'll love taking the kiddie to the park for a game of football when he is 75 and the kid is 12. He'll be lucky to live to see the kid into his twenties. It's hard enough losing a parent in your 30's let alone teens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 10 February, 2011 Share Posted 10 February, 2011 It's not End of though is it. It's End of your supposed negative reasons as to why you believe he should not be able to adopt. Why not come up with some valid reasons as to why he should? Generous, compassion, loving relationship, talented, available resource for the child, lover of sport, charity worker etc etc Seriously? You are seriously trying to defend the rights of a 63 year old man (who has demonstrated on numerous ocassions both in prvate and public why he would not make a good father) to have a child? And what does having talent or being a lover of sport have to do with anything? Here is my first post on the subject: I think this is an interesting topic. Clearly in an ideal world where families consisted of a male and a female then the ideal is to keep children within that traditional setting. Obviously the world doesn't work like that and I see no reason why a gay couple cannot foster or adopt a child if the alternative for that child is worse than being adopted by a same sex couple (which may lead to some confusion or identity issues on the part of the child). However, in this case that is not the consideration. For a start, this just seems like some sort of publicity stunt or a new toy for Elton. Elton John is an extremely hateful individual, from being rude petulant and throwing childlike tantrums at photographers to his past drug abuse and feeling it appropriate to joke about his anal dildo in an interview from a couple of months ago he is clearly not a good role model for a child to have. On top of that, he is also an old man and it is unkind on a child to be raised by someone who may need someone to look after himself soon. I feel strongly that parents should be discouraged from having children later in life purely because it deprives the child of so much. So in summary, gay and lesbian couples should be able to adopt children IF they are the best option available (with a loving male female partnership being the ideal) but Elton John is too old and a terrible role model to adopt a child. If it was anyone else they would have been refused but because it is Elton it is allowed and that is wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notnowcato Posted 10 February, 2011 Share Posted 10 February, 2011 Seriously? You are seriously trying to defend the rights of a 63 year old man (who has demonstrated on numerous ocassions both in prvate and public why he would not make a good father) to have a child? And what does having talent or being a lover of sport have to do with anything? Here is my first post on the subject: I'm defending the rights of a 63 year old man who has also on numerous occassions demonstrated why he would make a good parent. That of course would not make front page news. I doubt I would have to delve too far into your posting history to come up with examples of you being rude, petulant and child like at times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 10 February, 2011 Share Posted 10 February, 2011 I'm defending the rights of a 63 year old man who has also on numerous occassions demonstrated why he would make a good parent. That of course would not make front page news. I doubt I would have to delve too far into your posting history to come up with examples of you being rude, petulant and child like at times. But I'm not trying to adopt a child. So the fact that he is 63 is not a problem to you? What a strange world, or rather what strange posters there are on here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 10 February, 2011 Author Share Posted 10 February, 2011 But I'm not trying to adopt a child. So the fact that he is 63 is not a problem to you? What a strange world, or rather what strange posters there are on here. This. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notnowcato Posted 10 February, 2011 Share Posted 10 February, 2011 But I'm not trying to adopt a child. So the fact that he is 63 is not a problem to you? What a strange world, or rather what strange posters there are on here. Adoption is the process, being fit for purpose is the question here. You claim that being rude, petulant and child like are traits that should question whether someone is fit to be a parent. You must admit you are wrong here. Age is a factor. 63 is not ideal but we are all living longer, 1 in 6 of us on this thread will live to be 100 (knowing our luck it will be Turkish ;-) ). Therefore age is not such a significant factor to prevent this child from being brought up in a loving environment. For the record your final comment puts you into the patronising and prejudiced c**t category. But I actually don't think you are, I'd rather believe that you know you are in the wrong but too pig headed to admit it.... oh whoops, now that's not a nice trait for a future parent is it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notnowcato Posted 10 February, 2011 Share Posted 10 February, 2011 This. This.... doesn't surprise me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notnowcato Posted 10 February, 2011 Share Posted 10 February, 2011 I am sure he'll love taking the kiddie to the park for a game of football when he is 75 and the kid is 12. He'll be lucky to live to see the kid into his twenties. It's hard enough losing a parent in your 30's let alone teens. It's never easy to lose ones that you love, never. My dad was 24, straight and married to my mum when I was born, he never once took me to the park to play football. Didn't stop me from loving the game though, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 10 February, 2011 Share Posted 10 February, 2011 Adoption is the process, being fit for purpose is the question here. You claim that being rude, petulant and child like are traits that should question whether someone is fit to be a parent. You must admit you are wrong here. Elton had a surrogate mother with the specific purpose of giving him a child. Are you saying that the fact that he is Elton John does not afford him a load of leniency when assessing whether he is allowed to adopt a child? If you don't think that then I think you are being slightly naive. I find it extremely unlikely that Elton would have been refused a child, could you imagine the uproar? Age is a factor. 63 is not ideal but we are all living longer, 1 in 6 of us on this thread will live to be 100 (knowing our luck it will be Turkish ;-) ). Therefore age is not such a significant factor to prevent this child from being brought up in a loving environment. Well actually yes it is if Elton is unable to look after and properly care for a child due to his age. There is a bit more than just love needed. So if the average age suddenly jumps in the next few years to 120 (very unlikely that Elton will live to 100 by the way, given his weight and past drug abuse) then is 80 OK to adopt a child? When does it become unacceptable? IMO there has to be a cutoff point and adopting a baby at 63 is too old. For the record your final comment puts you into the patronising and prejudiced c**t category. But I actually don't think you are, I'd rather believe that you know you are in the wrong but too pig headed to admit it.... oh whoops, now that's not a nice trait for a future parent is it. That just reaffirms my belief that there are some odd people on here. Thankfully the vast majority (even joensuu) on here agree on this issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notnowcato Posted 10 February, 2011 Share Posted 10 February, 2011 Elton had a surrogate mother with the specific purpose of giving him a child. Are you saying that the fact that he is Elton John does not afford him a load of leniency when assessing whether he is allowed to adopt a child? If you don't think that then I think you are being slightly naive. I find it extremely unlikely that Elton would have been refused a child, could you imagine the uproar? Well actually yes it is if Elton is unable to look after and properly care for a child due to his age. There is a bit more than just love needed. So if the average age suddenly jumps in the next few years to 120 (very unlikely that Elton will live to 100 by the way, given his weight and past drug abuse) then is 80 OK to adopt a child? When does it become unacceptable? IMO there has to be a cutoff point and adopting a baby at 63 is too old. That just reaffirms my belief that there are some odd people on here. Thankfully the vast majority (even joensuu) on here agree on this issue. Why would there be such an uproar if he was refused? You are clearly suggesting that the only reason for "uproar" would be because he is gay and in a privaliged position. Why can you not see the good things that Elton brings for the child?? Or is he simply a bad person that doesn't deserve to be a parent?? I'm pleased to be in the minority on this one, if that is the case. If it helps you sleep at night that "the vast majority of SWF agree with me" then more power to your elbow. Pass the sleeping tabs I'm obviously in for a bout of insomnia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 10 February, 2011 Share Posted 10 February, 2011 That just reaffirms my belief that there are some odd people on here. Thankfully the vast majority (even joensuu) on here agree on this issue. Hypo, get a life of your own and stop trying to lives of others. Sloping along in the wake of the wafer-thin mind of Turkish makes you look even worse than usual. Such righteous indignation sits not so well with that fundamental Christian value expressed in 'he who casts the first stone...' Wouldn't you think? And are you so absolutely sure that your own life lives up to the morally and ethnically cleansed standards of those two almighty paragons of high virtue, dune and turkish? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 10 February, 2011 Share Posted 10 February, 2011 Hypo, get a life of your own and stop trying to lives of others. Sloping along in the wake of the wafer-thin mind of Turkish makes you look even worse than usual. Such righteous indignation sits not so well with that fundamental Christian value expressed in 'he who casts the first stone...' Wouldn't you think? And are you so absolutely sure that your own life lives up to the morally and ethnically cleansed standards of those two almighty paragons of high virtue, dune and turkish? What are you on about? I disagree with Turkish in some areas and hence why I have mostly not commented on what he has said. I just fundamentally believe that Elton John should not be a father at his age and knowing what he has done in the past. It's nothing to do with anyone else, I'm expressing an opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joensuu Posted 10 February, 2011 Share Posted 10 February, 2011 That just reaffirms my belief that there are some odd people on here. Thankfully the vast majority (even joensuu) on here agree on this issue. - perhaps (for once) you have a good point to make. IMO 63 is too old for both the parent and child. When the kid is of A'Level age, Furnish will be in his mid 60's, which is okay, whereas Elton will be past 80 - that's simply not fair to the child (or the pensioner). However, IMO, sexuality shouldn't be brought into it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 10 February, 2011 Share Posted 10 February, 2011 What are you on about? I disagree with Turkish in some areas and hence why I have mostly not commented on what he has said. I just fundamentally believe that Elton John should not be a father at his age and knowing what he has done in the past. It's nothing to do with anyone else, I'm expressing an opinion. That's fine, so long as you recognise your view is worth jack**** - even 'fundamental' jack****. I love the 'knowing what he's done in the past' bit. Pontificating and taking the moral high ground is reserved for Saints (in the spiritual sense, not the football one) - rather than morally compromised posters on here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notnowcato Posted 10 February, 2011 Share Posted 10 February, 2011 What are you on about? I disagree with Turkish in some areas and hence why I have mostly not commented on what he has said. I just fundamentally believe that Elton John should not be a father at his age and knowing what he has done in the past. It's nothing to do with anyone else, I'm expressing an opinion. What has Elton done in the past that makes him unfit to be a parent? So far you have listed the crimes of; temper, petulance, child like behaviour and openly discussing sexual activity. Lets forget about the $250m his Aids foundation has raised, the bankrolling of Watford Football Club a club that he still supports, his support of the Give A Damn Campaign. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 10 February, 2011 Share Posted 10 February, 2011 That's fine, so long as you recognise your view is worth jack**** - even 'fundamental' jack****. I love the 'knowing what he's done in the past' bit. Pontificating and taking the moral high ground is reserved for Saints (in the spiritual sense, not the football one) - rather than morally compromised posters on here. Elton to my knowledge has taken numerous drugs, displayed violent and abusive behaviour, punched cameramen, went on national TV to boast about how his anal dildo is his most precious possession, been addicted to alcohol and cocaine, blew 30 million quid in 2 years and spent hundreds of thousands on flowers (nothing wrong with that in itself of course but is indicative of his attitude generally). You only have to watch that documentary they did a few years back to see what sort of man he is (not one fit to bring up a child IMO.) Of course he could have dramatically changed in the last couple of months but I doubt it very much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 10 February, 2011 Share Posted 10 February, 2011 What has Elton done in the past that makes him unfit to be a parent? So far you have listed the crimes of; temper, petulance, child like behaviour and openly discussing sexual activity. Lets forget about the $250m his Aids foundation has raised, the bankrolling of Watford Football Club a club that he still supports, his support of the Give A Damn Campaign. None of those things matter. It isn't about weighing up pros and cons. Any good he does does not cancel out everything else. Or are you suggesting that a child would be less damaged if they get beaten up by a parent who then gives half their earnings to charity? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notnowcato Posted 10 February, 2011 Share Posted 10 February, 2011 None of those things matter. It isn't about weighing up pros and cons. Any good he does does not cancel out everything else. Or are you suggesting that a child would be less damaged if they get beaten up by a parent who then gives half their earnings to charity? Sorry but his actions do matter. You clearly believe that his actions matter as you are willing to write him off as not being a deserving parent due to some of his actions in the past. Obviously you focus in on the negative to back your claim. I'm not discounting those points but even on their own they are not worthy to disallow him from being a parent. Are you suggesting that Elton is likely to beat this child up? If he laid one finger on that child I would support the law in acting accordingly. What you are still to firmly establish is why he should not be a parent to the child. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gingeletiss Posted 10 February, 2011 Share Posted 10 February, 2011 Sorry but his actions do matter. You clearly believe that his actions matter as you are willing to write him off as not being a deserving parent due to some of his actions in the past. Obviously you focus in on the negative to back your claim. I'm not discounting those points but even on their own they are not worthy to disallow him from being a parent. Are you suggesting that Elton is likely to beat this child up? If he laid one finger on that child I would support the law in acting accordingly. What you are still to firmly establish is why he should not be a parent to the child. You need to climb down off your high horse never mind Hypo. He answered your question, EJ is unfit, hence why he couldn't achieve this in this country. If he was a mere mortal like most of us, he wouldn't get within a hundred miles of having this kid. It is immoral, and that my friend, is according to the Bible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 10 February, 2011 Share Posted 10 February, 2011 Sorry but his actions do matter. You clearly believe that his actions matter as you are willing to write him off as not being a deserving parent due to some of his actions in the past. Obviously you focus in on the negative to back your claim. All that matters is the well-being of the child. It doesn't matter if 99% of what he does is wonderful if he does one thing or has a character trait which makes him unsuitable for adoption I'm not discounting those points but even on their own they are not worthy to disallow him from being a parent. I totally disagree. Are you suggesting that Elton is likely to beat this child up? If he laid one finger on that child I would support the law in acting accordingly. What you are still to firmly establish is why he should not be a parent to the child. Obviously that is not what I was saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 10 February, 2011 Share Posted 10 February, 2011 You need to climb down off your high horse never mind Hypo. He answered your question, EJ is unfit, hence why he couldn't achieve this in this country. If he was a mere mortal like most of us, he wouldn't get within a hundred miles of having this kid. It is immoral, and that my friend, is according to the Bible. Exactly! except the bible bit (amazing that I am agreeing with you ). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notnowcato Posted 10 February, 2011 Share Posted 10 February, 2011 So what are you saying Hypo? Couple of straightforward questions to help you out here: Do you think the child is not safe in the care of Elton John and his husband? Do you think the child will not have sufficient love and care given to him by Elton John and his husband? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 10 February, 2011 Share Posted 10 February, 2011 So what are you saying Hypo? Couple of straightforward questions to help you out here: Do you think the child is not safe in the care of Elton John and his husband? That is not the point. The child will probably be safe but that was not what I have a problem with. Do you think the child will not have sufficient love and care given to him by Elton John and his husband? I believe the child could potentially be significantly deprived and would be concerned about Elton acting as a father figure due to everything I have already mentioned. As gingeletiss says, he would not have been able to adopt in this country. It is interesting that it has happened in America where celebrity and status counts for so much. I feel sorry for the child. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notnowcato Posted 10 February, 2011 Share Posted 10 February, 2011 You need to climb down off your high horse never mind Hypo. He answered your question, EJ is unfit, hence why he couldn't achieve this in this country. If he was a mere mortal like most of us, he wouldn't get within a hundred miles of having this kid. It is immoral, and that my friend, is according to the Bible. According to the bible, homosexual acts are immoral. I'd like to think that as a society we have moved on from that, maybe some knuckles still being dragged in certain places. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deppo Posted 10 February, 2011 Share Posted 10 February, 2011 (edited) So, according to some of the posters on here, people should be told they cannot have children after a certain age. 63, it seems is beyond an acceptable age - so what is the limit? Warren Beattie had a child aged 62, Cahrlie Chaplin when he was 73, Paul Mcartney when he was 61 and Larry King had one at 65 and one at 66 (the dirty old b*stard). So are these people ok to have children because they didn't adopt? Or because they're not gay? They've all got the wealth, fame and money that EJ has - so that arguement can't work anymore. I'm confused about the rules here - maybe one of those saying EJ shouldn't be adopting could clarify their position on these other older parents? Edited 10 February, 2011 by Deppo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 10 February, 2011 Share Posted 10 February, 2011 I think 63 is too old to have a child no matter who you are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gingeletiss Posted 10 February, 2011 Share Posted 10 February, 2011 According to the bible, homosexual acts are immoral. I'd like to think that as a society we have moved on from that, maybe some knuckles still being dragged in certain places. I resent that, given I am not religious. I'm pointing out, that this is a Christian society, supposedly with Christian values. Homosexuality is immoral, regardless of how we have been forced to accept certain things, a large proportion of this population would agree with me. All on here are entitled to their views on this, alas, this is my view. Outdated you may think, but that's my age group I'm afraid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notnowcato Posted 10 February, 2011 Share Posted 10 February, 2011 I believe the child could potentially be significantly deprived and would be concerned about Elton acting as a father figure due to everything I have already mentioned. As gingeletiss says, he would not have been able to adopt in this country. It is interesting that it has happened in America where celebrity and status counts for so much. I feel sorry for the child. Gingeletiss is actually incorrect. Same sex couples have been able to apply to the adoption authorities in this country since 2005. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 10 February, 2011 Share Posted 10 February, 2011 Elton to my knowledge has taken numerous drugs, displayed violent and abusive behaviour, punched cameramen, went on national TV to boast about how his anal dildo is his most precious possession, been addicted to alcohol and cocaine, blew 30 million quid in 2 years and spent hundreds of thousands on flowers (nothing wrong with that in itself of course but is indicative of his attitude generally). You only have to watch that documentary they did a few years back to see what sort of man he is (not one fit to bring up a child IMO.) Of course he could have dramatically changed in the last couple of months but I doubt it very much. I think the flowers thing is disgraceful. But I keep coming back to this, because EJ is a celebrity and you're anything but. If your life were scrutinised to that extent, would you be so high and mighty? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 10 February, 2011 Share Posted 10 February, 2011 I think the flowers thing is disgraceful. But I keep coming back to this, because EJ is a celebrity and you're anything but. If your life were scrutinised to that extent, would you be so high and mighty? What have I got to do with anything? I'm commenting on Elton's suitability to be a father. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joensuu Posted 10 February, 2011 Share Posted 10 February, 2011 (edited) So, according to some of the posters on here, people should be told they cannot have children after a certain age. 63, it seems is beyond an acceptable age - so what is the limit? Warren Beattie had a child aged 62, Cahrlie Chaplin when he was 73, Paul Mcartney when he was 61, As one of those who thinks 63 is too old, I'd say that there shouldn't be a fixed limit - society shouldn't restrict how people chose to live their own lives. However, I still feel 63 is too old. Personally, I think a good rule of thumb would be for the child to reach adulthood before the parent reaches retirement, which would give us an age of c. 47 (depending on retirement age). Again 47 shouldn't be hard and fast (i.e legally enshrined) - it's just about the maximum age I personally would feel comfortable becoming a father. Edited 10 February, 2011 by Joensuu Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notnowcato Posted 10 February, 2011 Share Posted 10 February, 2011 I resent that, given I am not religious. I'm pointing out, that this is a Christian society, supposedly with Christian values. Homosexuality is immoral, regardless of how we have been forced to accept certain things, a large proportion of this population would agree with me. All on here are entitled to their views on this, alas, this is my view. Outdated you may think, but that's my age group I'm afraid. You are not religious but quote the bible. Homosexuality is deemed immoral but not illegal. It is not your age group, I'm afraid, it's your ignorance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 10 February, 2011 Share Posted 10 February, 2011 As one of those who thinks 63 is too old, I'd say that there should be a fixed limit - society shouldn't restrict how people chose to live their own lives. However, I still feel 63 is too old. Personally, I think a good rule of thumb would be for the child to reach adulthood before the parent reaches retirement, which would give us an age of c. 47 (depending on retirement age). Again 47 shouldn't be hard and fast (i.e legally enshrined) - it's just about the maximum age I personally would feel comfortable becoming a father. I think that's a fair comment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 10 February, 2011 Share Posted 10 February, 2011 What have I got to do with anything? I'm commenting on Elton's suitability to be a father. So you're exempt from the standards your holding EJ to? What is hypo short for? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 10 February, 2011 Share Posted 10 February, 2011 So you're exempt from the standards your holding EJ to? What is hypo short for? If I was trying to adopt a child then your argument would be relevant. I am not so it is not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deppo Posted 10 February, 2011 Share Posted 10 February, 2011 It is immoral, and that my friend, is according to the Bible. In the face of this overwhelming evidence, it is surely now "case closed". Lock this thread up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 10 February, 2011 Share Posted 10 February, 2011 As a rule of thumb I'd agree with that. Trouble is its unenforceable and not always desirable. I think giving fertility treatment to women in their 50s and 60s is wrong, I think it is wrong to conceive a baby from your dead husbands sperm, I think surrogacy for money is wrong and, when it happens in the future, I think cloning a baby from your own stem cells is wrong. But some people will always do what they want, regardless of what is arguably best for the child and I dont think it helps any to try to 'ban' someone from bringing up the child after the fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now