ChatterBank5 mins ago
Mum & Mum and the child
17 Answers
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles /news/news.html?in_article_id=491488&in_page_i d=1770
Just another step to the complete break up of the traditional family.
How can a child have two Mums, if Female partners wish to have a child, then one partner should be called Dad and the other Mum.
And why are Men in same sex relationships who have children through surrogate mothers not expected to be covered by the new legislation?
Isn't this sexual discrimination?
Just another step to the complete break up of the traditional family.
How can a child have two Mums, if Female partners wish to have a child, then one partner should be called Dad and the other Mum.
And why are Men in same sex relationships who have children through surrogate mothers not expected to be covered by the new legislation?
Isn't this sexual discrimination?
Answers
1 to 17 of 17
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I don't think there is such a thing as 'the traditional family' anymore, unless we define it as one of infinite variety. Times change and our lives with them, and if homosexual couples are capable of providing a loving, secure and stable home for their kids without the input of a 'parent' of their opposite gender, then that's fine. Many kids grow up without fathers in their lives, or even father figures (ie. stepfathers etc). It doesn't always damage a child.
Dr Cole may be correct in stating that children need male influence in their lives, but he fails to address the fact that many fathers have the worst possible influence in their kids.
That said, I think this legislation should include male couples. As you said, not to include them would seem to amount to sexual discrimination.
Dr Cole may be correct in stating that children need male influence in their lives, but he fails to address the fact that many fathers have the worst possible influence in their kids.
That said, I think this legislation should include male couples. As you said, not to include them would seem to amount to sexual discrimination.
Antheoldgit - I couldn't care less about your sexual feelings. Really, it makes no difference to my life.
Now, that being the case, I expand it to pretty much everyone else too. I don't care what their preference is, so long as consenting adults are involved.
So far as families go - the same applies. So long as it's a happy healthy unit, I don't care if it contains same sex couples, hetero couples, or martians.
(I agree with your point re sexual discrimination btw - you're 100% correct.)
And be honest here. You're talking about a point of principlem and I accept and admire that - the fact that you obviously have strong principles (pity more people don't). But I'll say to you what I said to one of my workmates this week when discussing same-sex marriages (soon to be introduced here in Ireland). Who am i to tell you who you can love? Who am I to tell you what your feelings should be? Who am I to forbid you to have what I have just because we're different? And who am I to label you? If both want to be called mum, that's great. I have no problem with a child feeling so special that they have 2 mums. Having one is special. Having 2 would be tremendous.
Now, that being the case, I expand it to pretty much everyone else too. I don't care what their preference is, so long as consenting adults are involved.
So far as families go - the same applies. So long as it's a happy healthy unit, I don't care if it contains same sex couples, hetero couples, or martians.
(I agree with your point re sexual discrimination btw - you're 100% correct.)
And be honest here. You're talking about a point of principlem and I accept and admire that - the fact that you obviously have strong principles (pity more people don't). But I'll say to you what I said to one of my workmates this week when discussing same-sex marriages (soon to be introduced here in Ireland). Who am i to tell you who you can love? Who am I to tell you what your feelings should be? Who am I to forbid you to have what I have just because we're different? And who am I to label you? If both want to be called mum, that's great. I have no problem with a child feeling so special that they have 2 mums. Having one is special. Having 2 would be tremendous.
A family unit doesn't need to be traditional to work. Apart from gender perspectives on things (which are less relevant today anyway), there's no logical reason a homosexual couple can't provide anything for a child that a heterosexual couple can (apart from some bizarre fixation with the idea that 'that's how it was done in the olden days which is rather silly).
It might break with what's 'traditional' in a rather minor way but there isn't really any reason why that should be considered bad in this case. It is rather odd that male couples aren't covered though.
It might break with what's 'traditional' in a rather minor way but there isn't really any reason why that should be considered bad in this case. It is rather odd that male couples aren't covered though.
Know what you mean, netibiza. Very contrived, isn't it? Like something from a photo-library. We're friendly with a lesbian couple who have teenage girls, and although the girls are pretty and the mums not what you'd call ugly, none of them look that perfect.
Still, at least it's not the usual stereotype of two crop-haired, butch women wearing boiler suits and doc martens, so I guess we ought to be grateful for that.
Still, at least it's not the usual stereotype of two crop-haired, butch women wearing boiler suits and doc martens, so I guess we ought to be grateful for that.
Homosexual couples (of either gender) cannot reproduce naturally. (I�ll stand by for somebody out there to tell me otherwise, so I�ll say �cannot generally reproduce naturally�!). They can only �have� children either by the intervention of science or administration. The former solution has only been available fairly recently; the latter course has always been available but only used fairly recently.
This arrangement, whilst perhaps being a little inconvenient for gays and lesbians, is the way nature intended it.
That�s all I�ll say. I�ll now sit back and wait for the flack. A few may agree with me. Those who support the philosophy of artificially making parents out of same-sex couples will take a different stance. They will ask me, since I appear to be in favour of allowing nature taking its course, whether I also agree that we should allow human beings to die of trivial diseases. Meantime I�ll remind myself (as I always do when I break my rule) why I don�t get involved (generally) in matters of opinion!
This arrangement, whilst perhaps being a little inconvenient for gays and lesbians, is the way nature intended it.
That�s all I�ll say. I�ll now sit back and wait for the flack. A few may agree with me. Those who support the philosophy of artificially making parents out of same-sex couples will take a different stance. They will ask me, since I appear to be in favour of allowing nature taking its course, whether I also agree that we should allow human beings to die of trivial diseases. Meantime I�ll remind myself (as I always do when I break my rule) why I don�t get involved (generally) in matters of opinion!
new judge - you're assuming that being gay is a genetic trait that can be passed from parent to child. It's not. Neither is it a disease or a failing. You're correct though, gay couples conceiving is new through science, and it's something to be celebrated.
I'm not sure what you feel is controversial in your post, you've stated fact and not opinion. If you're implying it's unnatural for gay people to have kids, then it also follows that couples who have infertility problems have children unnaturally...?
I'm not sure what you feel is controversial in your post, you've stated fact and not opinion. If you're implying it's unnatural for gay people to have kids, then it also follows that couples who have infertility problems have children unnaturally...?
I have a list of things I'm expecting to be cited as "similar" and infertile couples was at the top.
Just because something can be done is not always sufficient reason to say it should be done. I believe enabling same sex couples and infertile couples to have children fall into this category.
I'd love to be able to play snooker to professional standard. I cannot but I don't expect the medical profession to find a way to enable me to do so.
Some people can play snooker well, some cannot. Some people can have children, some cannot. You have to play the cards with which you are dealt.
Just because something can be done is not always sufficient reason to say it should be done. I believe enabling same sex couples and infertile couples to have children fall into this category.
I'd love to be able to play snooker to professional standard. I cannot but I don't expect the medical profession to find a way to enable me to do so.
Some people can play snooker well, some cannot. Some people can have children, some cannot. You have to play the cards with which you are dealt.
AS long as it is considered ok for infertile couples to be enabled to have children then I think the same should apply to same sex relationships. I personally think that infertility is natures way of keeping the population down and we should interfer with this. Of course I havent suffered the heartache of not being able to conceive but I truly believe I would have headed into adoption territory instead of IVF.
1 to 17 of 17
Latest Posts
ChatterBank6 mins ago
Car Won't Start, But Rac Can't Find...
Motoring12 mins ago
Spectator N0 2682 - Exchanges By Doc
Crosswords16 mins ago
ChatterBank20 mins ago
