Surrogacy for same sex couples

[Sidney1st]

Sidney,
Tell me how the Quran is similar to the bible.

A full break down you won't get, but I have already said they share the same myths as their predecessors, the Quran is just the next book along the line.

Islam was created using parts of Judaism, Christianity and other local desert religions, same with Christianity borrowing heavily from older religions.
The 3 are one of the same religion, worship the same god, all believe in Abraham, treat certain people the same etc.

The world would be a better place with out them.

[Chip Harrison]

What on earth do you mean, "all believe in Abraham". You can't become an expert on this just by skimming the internet for things you might think back up your view. Some facts.

1.The Quran says that Jesus is not the son of God.
2.Muhammad said that the most detestable name on the day of resurrection is king of kings.
3.The Quran says that Jesus was no more than a messenger.
4.The Quran says that Jesus was not crucified.
5.The Quran says that Jesus was not God.
6.The Quran says that associating others with God is the unforgiveable sin.
7.Allah commands that no Muslims drink any wine.
8.The Quran says that Jesus prophesied the coming of Muhammad.
9. The bible says treat women equally. The Quran says 2 women are not as truthful as 1 man
10. The Quran says you can beat your wife.

Where are the similarities?

[Sidney1st]

They're different branches of the same religion.

If you don't want to believe that, it's not my issue, there are enough connections and they're both accepted as being Abrahamic religions.
What you want is specific quotes or wordings between two books.

Personally I think they should be considered as a past time, or something similar and shouldn't be so central to life.

They're outdated and the government have other ways of controlling society nowadays.

[Imploding Turtle]

A bigot is simply someone who won't listen to another's point of view.
Some on here are bigoted against older people who's views don't move with trends.

I think you're mistaking "listening" to old people who's views don't move with aquiescing to old people. A lot of people do that with the meaning of "listen". They think that they're not listened to if their point of view isn't accepted as correct.

I listen to old people all the time, but i often disregard the bullshit, backwards nonsense they sometimes come out with.

[Falcon]

My gran doesn't like homosexuals. I can dislike her bigoted beliefs (and try in vain to talk her around) without disliking my gran as a person (she's lovely) or old people in general.

Old people by and large are very nice people. Same as young people and everyone in between. Unfortunately though they are largely (but not entirely - my other gran thinks gays are great) bigoted against homosexuality.

[Blackrod]

I don't agree with Sidney's view that the world would be a better place without religion. He's perfectly entitled to that view and that doesn't mean he is wrong. I've been to a synagogue and have no issues with it but hypothetically if I had been in and stated ' I don't agree with Jewish practices' that is hardly discrimination. You would just be asked to leave and what would be the point of going. If you were trying to incite threats or violence that is different. People should be allowed to express their views to a point. If someone doesn't agree with surrogacy in this instance for example it does not make them wrong or discriminatory as much as Lancasterclaret and Martin p and others don't like it.

[Imploding Turtle]

I doubt you'd be asked to leave simply for saying you don't agree with Jewish practices. Most places of worship are welcoming of people of different faiths, and people of no faith.

[TVC15]

I don't agree with Sidney's view that the world would be a better place without religion. He's perfectly entitled to that view and that doesn't mean he is wrong. I've been to a synagogue and have no issues with it but hypothetically if I had been in and stated ' I don't agree with Jewish practices' that is hardly discrimination. You would just be asked to leave and what would be the point of going. If you were trying to incite threats or violence that is different. People should be allowed to express their views to a point. If someone doesn't agree with surrogacy in this instance for example it does not make them wrong or discriminatory as much as Lancasterclaret and Martin p and others don't like it.

“Not agreeing with surrogacy” is not the issue. Of course people are entitled to this opinion.
Not agreeing with surrogacy for same sex couples is clearly different though. It’s not about the surrogacy in these cases and it is therefore discrimination.....as in being discriminative against a certain part of the population because of their sexuality.

Am I missing something here ?

[Imploding Turtle]

“Not agreeing with surrogacy” is not the issue. Of course people are entitled to this opinion.
Not agreeing with surrogacy for same sex couples is clearly different though. It’s not about the surrogacy in these cases and it is therefore discrimination.....as in being discriminative against a certain part of the population because of their sexuality.

Am I missing something here ?

You are not.

[Blackrod]

“Not agreeing with surrogacy” is not the issue. Of course people are entitled to this opinion.
Not agreeing with surrogacy for same sex couples is clearly different though. It’s not about the surrogacy in these cases and it is therefore discrimination.....as in being discriminative against a certain part of the population because of their sexuality.

Am I missing something here ?

Yes.

A cafe owner turns away a same sex couple with a surrogate baby because they don't believe this should be allowed. In the current eyes of the Law this is discrimination.

v

A person says they don't agree with surrogate babies being a lifestyle choice for same sex couples. An individual's opinion and not discrimination.

[Chip Harrison]

[quote="Sidney1st"]They're different branches of the same religion.

What next? Communism and Capitalism are different branches of the same ideology?

[CoolClaret]

The debate here isn't about degenerate families vs loving gay ones.

The debate is if it is ethically sound for a child to be brought up with a lack of either a male or female role model - which both are an essential part in the development of a child.

I couldn't care if two women would show a young lad 'love' - do you really think that objectively it is the best way for that young lad to be brought up? If you think so then you are severely deluded or lying - yes of course it's better than a druggy deadbeat dad and a prostitute abusive mother, but let's not use extremes to prove a point.

[Lancasterclaret]

Extremes?

This thread should really have ended when someone posted "who cares as long as the kid is bought up in a loving and caring environment?"

[UpTheBeehole]

The debate here isn't about degenerate families vs loving gay ones.

The debate is if it is ethically sound for a child to be brought up with a lack of either a male or female role model - which both are an essential part in the development of a child.

I couldn't care if two women would show a young lad 'love' - do you really think that objectively it is the best way for that young lad to be brought up? If you think so then you are severely deluded or lying - yes of course it's better than a druggy deadbeat dad and a prostitute abusive mother, but let's not use extremes to prove a point.

As has already been asked: what about those millions brought up by single mums?

[Blackrod]

Single mums have a hard job on their hands and it is not the ideal. However this may be due to relationship breakdown and the only alternative may be abortion. It is often not the case that someone is making a lifestyle choice to be a single parent although it can happen.

[Lancasterclaret]

As long as the kid is bought up in a loving and caring enviroment it shouldn't matter, be that single mum, gays parents, straight parents, whatever.

The welfare of the kid is paramount and certainly trumps any disagreements on religous grounds or "I like being a dinosaur, look at how much I refuse to move on" grounds.

[TVC15]

Yes.

A cafe owner turns away a same sex couple with a surrogate baby because they don't believe this should be allowed. In the current eyes of the Law this is discrimination.

v

A person says they don't agree with surrogate babies being a lifestyle choice for same sex couples. An individual's opinion and not discrimination.

Like pulling teeth...

An individuals opinion can of course be discriminative...or prejudice or racial....etc

If somebody voices an opinion to you that all women should be paid less than men in all circumstances then that is more than just an opinion - its a discriminative opinion.

If that person then employs a woman and pays her less than a man doing the same job that is an act of discrimination.

Its really not that hard to understand...or do you want me to give you a racist example ?!!

[UpTheBeehole]

Single mums have a hard job on their hands and it is not the ideal. However this may be due to relationship breakdown and the only alternative may be abortion. It is often not the case that someone is making a lifestyle choice to be a single parent although it can happen.

The issue being brought up was the lack of a male role model.

Millions of kids have grown up without a male role model, but it won't have done them any harm.

So takeaway the problems you're inserting, caused by the mum being single, because in this scenario the mum is happily married to her wife.

No problems then, are there?

[TVC15]

The debate here isn't about degenerate families vs loving gay ones.

The debate is if it is ethically sound for a child to be brought up with a lack of either a male or female role model - which both are an essential part in the development of a child.

I couldn't care if two women would show a young lad 'love' - do you really think that objectively it is the best way for that young lad to be brought up? If you think so then you are severely deluded or lying - yes of course it's better than a druggy deadbeat dad and a prostitute abusive mother, but let's not use extremes to prove a point.

Hells teeth - its 2018 not 1918
A child can have male role models outside of the family home you realise.

What does a male and female role model even mean these days ? Give me some examples which are better than mum showing the child how to cook, clean and iron and the dad showing the child how to play football, drink and fart.

[Lancasterclaret]

Remember he hasn't got a view on this.

Just check out his views on anything else that a liberal would find horrifying and hey presto! you have his view.

He either thinks he's being very clever or he thinks we are all thick as pigshit.

[Blackrod]

I think we everyone can agree on the fact that the child's welfare is the most important thing. Some posters are of course miles apart on their 'opinions' on this subject matter. Of course if you don't agree with Lancasterclaret entirely you have been labelled a 'dinosaur'. You cannot be discriminating without an action or doing something to affect another adversely. An opinion is neither.

[TVC15]

I think that's confirmed it.
Thick as pigshit

[Lancasterclaret]

Blackrod

Doesn't bother me in the slightest as all I want you to agree too is that the child's welfare is paramount.

Which you've agreed with.

So thats you fine with same sex parenting. I'm happy with that.

[Sidney1st]

The debate here isn't about degenerate families vs loving gay ones.

The debate is if it is ethically sound for a child to be brought up with a lack of either a male or female role model - which both are an essential part in the development of a child.

I couldn't care if two women would show a young lad 'love' - do you really think that objectively it is the best way for that young lad to be brought up? If you think so then you are severely deluded or lying - yes of course it's better than a druggy deadbeat dad and a prostitute abusive mother, but let's not use extremes to prove a point.

It hasn't been an issue for my mates lad...

In fact he's had a better upbringing since his mum settled down with a woman than he was having when his dad was on the scene, who has now cut all contact with his kids

Besides, there are many females who're more butch than some blokes.

[CoolClaret]

It hasn't been an issue for my mates lad...

In fact he's had a better upbringing since his mum settled down with a woman than he was having when his dad was on the scene, who has now cut all contact with his kids

Besides, there are many females who're more butch than some blokes.

Like I said, I'm not debating n=1 instances,
I'd argue that the lad would have an 'even better' upbringing in a stable, traditional household.

As has already been asked: what about those millions brought up by single mums?

What about them? It really isn't good on the whole. Which is a big reason why inner cities suffer with high crime rates, young lads without influential father figures.

https://thefatherlessgeneration.wordpre ... tatistics/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

^ a quick Google search, the stats are referenced if you would like to further research them.

Again I'm not arguing if a homosexual couple can provide a better upbringing than a deadbeat messed up family, I'm arguing that it isn't optimal.

I also don't understand the end goal with this post - modern train of thought, why the push to do away with the traditional family?

[UpTheBeehole]

A stable traditional household is two parents and a child.

What's different?

[UpTheBeehole]

I've got an idea: why don't we place all kids in need of a father figure with a couple made up of two gay men?

What better way to make up for not having a father figure than having TWO father figures?

[CoolClaret]

A stable traditional household is two parents and a child.

What's different?

I believe that on average (which is important as populations are made up of 'average people') that a man and a woman 'on average' have unique differing qualities that children can learn from to develop optimally.

This link supports my point:

http://www.cfcidaho.org/why-children-ne ... ale-parent" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

'When we disregard the gender distinctions of parental influence as unimportant or unnecessary, we seriously diminish the proper development of children. Kids need the active participation of a mother and a father, and both parents need to be true to their gender designs. Both bring different and equally important things to the parenting project. We impoverish children and society when we deny our kids the influence of a mother and father, because we limit their development into full, healthy adults.'

It also includes sources to points raised.

[boyyanno]

Before anyone jumps the gun please read this post in its entirety. I do have an issue with same sex couples and children, but it's not one born from discrimination on my part.

The issue I can see is exactly what has presented itself on this board, some people agree, some don't. Some people might think just doing it is a good idea (which I understand as it will never become a norm otherwise) and normally there's no problem with that, but when you look at this as a child's life then it worries me that they could be subject to horrendous bullying while some of society can't or don't accept it. When you consider that you have to consider the wellbeing of the child and wonder if that is a good thing for them to experience. It may be better than the extreme alternatives, but it's also worse than some of the extremes the other way. In an ideal scenario it wouldn't matter in the slightest, but I'm not sure the world is liberal enough yet.

Does that make me a bigot?

[Imploding Turtle]

I believe that on average (which is important as populations are made up of 'average people') that a man and a woman 'on average' have unique differing qualities that children can learn from to develop optimally.

This link supports my point:

http://www.cfcidaho.org/why-children-ne ... ale-parent" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

'When we disregard the gender distinctions of parental influence as unimportant or unnecessary, we seriously diminish the proper development of children. Kids need the active participation of a mother and a father, and both parents need to be true to their gender designs. Both bring different and equally important things to the parenting project. We impoverish children and society when we deny our kids the influence of a mother and father, because we limit their development into full, healthy adults.'

It also includes sources to points raised.

None of that means anything. None of it is science. And it's ironic that you're touting that right-wing family values site for it's use of sourcing, but when i checked the first instance of it providing a source you can see where its bias lies.

Here's what cfcidaho.org quoted from a Psychology Today article: "fatherhood turns out to be a complex and unique phenomenon with huge consequences for the emotional and intellectual growth of children"

Here's what it cut from that paragraph: What emerges from their work is the beginning of a truly modern concept of paternity, one in which old assumptions are overturned or, at the very least, cast in a radically different light. Far from Mead's "social accident," fatherhood turns out to be a complex and unique phenomenon with huge consequences for the emotional and intellectual growth of children.

So because cfcidaho is only interested in pushing a specific religious agenda, from a paragraph talking about overturning old assumptions about parenthood they cut out a part of a sentence because without the context it appeared to support their point of view, and they thought they could use it to convince credulous readers.

Stop listening to right-wing religious propaganda. It's getting you nowhere.

[Blackrod]

Before anyone jumps the gun please read this post in its entirety. I do have an issue with same sex couples and children, but it's not one born from discrimination on my part.

The issue I can see is exactly what has presented itself on this board, some people agree, some don't. Some people might think just doing it is a good idea (which I understand as it will never become a norm otherwise) and normally there's no problem with that, but when you look at this as a child's life then it worries me that they could be subject to horrendous bullying while some of society can't or don't accept it. When you consider that you have to consider the wellbeing of the child and wonder if that is a good thing for them to experience. It may be better than the extreme alternatives, but it's also worse than some of the extremes the other way. In an ideal scenario it wouldn't matter in the slightest, but I'm not sure the world is liberal enough yet.

Does that make me a bigot?

This was one of the concerns of the programme. Whilst not the ideal kids can be cruel to others and this could have a bearing on their life. As LancasterClaret agrees the child's welfare is the most important thing I am sure he will be concerned about putting a child with no choice into this position.

[Imploding Turtle]

I would like to ask one question of those who keep talking about how a mother and father are important and so kids shouldn't be adopted by same sex couples. Why aren't you equally as vocal about your opposition to single-parent adoptions?

I don't think i've ever seen anyone protest against a single woman or single man adopting a child, yet i see plenty of people going on about how important a mother AND father is to a child when it comes to same-sex parentage. Funny that, isn't it?

[Imploding Turtle]

This was one of the concerns of the programme. Whilst not the ideal kids can be cruel to others and this could have a bearing on their life. As LancasterClaret agrees the child's welfare is the most important thing I am sure he will be concerned about putting a child with no choice into this position.

So because a child with two shitty parents of the opposite sex can't raise their child properly, you think that supports the argument that only opposite sex couples should raise children.

Let's say the child doing the bullying was raised by a same sex couple, do you think they've be bullying another child for being raised by a same sex couple? Probably not, right? So your argument is that the child being raised by a straight couple would be a better person if he or she was raised by a gay couple, and because of that we shouldn't have gay couples raising children.

[Guich]

Before anyone jumps the gun please read this post in its entirety. I do have an issue with same sex couples and children, but it's not one born from discrimination on my part.

The issue I can see is exactly what has presented itself on this board, some people agree, some don't. Some people might think just doing it is a good idea (which I understand as it will never become a norm otherwise) and normally there's no problem with that, but when you look at this as a child's life then it worries me that they could be subject to horrendous bullying while some of society can't or don't accept it. When you consider that you have to consider the wellbeing of the child and wonder if that is a good thing for them to experience. It may be better than the extreme alternatives, but it's also worse than some of the extremes the other way. In an ideal scenario it wouldn't matter in the slightest, but I'm not sure the world is liberal enough yet.

Does that make me a bigot?

No it doesn't Boyyanno and, sadly, I think you're right.

There seems to be an assumption, here and there, that young people are less bigoted than the old. Sure, older people do tend to make politically incorrect gaffs for fun, but from what my kids tell me there is rampant homophobia in school, so much so that when they had their LBGT assembly a couple of weeks ago it was delayed for ten minutes while the teachers tried to stop the kids, girls and boys, laughing and making lewd comments. It's a good school with strong discipline and good results so this was a surprise to me. But they seem to have been told what is right, what is unacceptable and what they are not allowed to have a dissenting opinion on, and kids never like that.

Most of the children are great, but it seems there is a significant minority which is bigoted. Just as there was when I was a kid.

[Lancasterclaret]

So the defence is now because the kids of bigots and ill-informed people might bully them, its best not to do it? Am I reading that correctly?

Kids can be very cruel, but at the end of the day, the kid will go home to his loving parents and feel loved whatever and whoever they are.

So again, as the child's welfare is paramount, and we all agree that its better to have parents than not, then surely we can agree that isn't an issue?

Cheers.

[CoolClaret]

None of that means anything. None of it is science. And it's ironic that you're touting that right-wing family values site for it's use of sourcing, but when i checked the first instance of it providing a source you can see where its bias lies.

It's literally the first thing that I typed in Google.

Yes sourcing was cut but it still stated that
Fatherhood has huge consequences for the emotional and intellectual growth of a child - so neglecting that would be pretty shitty, no?

For the record, I wasn't Christined or brought up religious at all.

I do however appreciate the benefits of the traditional Christian family in the similar sort of way that Dawkins does with his 'Secular Christian' remarks.

[CoolClaret]

So again, as the child's welfare is paramount, and we all agree that its better to have parents than not, then surely we can agree that isn't an issue?

I'm arguing that I don't believe it to be optimal.
Which when talking about the development of a child is a pretty big deal in my opinion.

[Imploding Turtle]

It's literally the first thing that I typed in Google.

Yes sourcing was cut but it still stated that
Fatherhood has huge consequences for the emotional and intellectual growth of a child - so neglecting that would be pretty shitty, no?

For the record, I wasn't Christined or brought up religious at all.

I do however appreciate the benefits of the traditional Christian family in the similar sort of way that Dawkins does with his 'Secular Christian' remarks.

I'm sure there are benefits of being raised by a mother and a father. But what makes you so sure there aren't benefits of being raised by two men, or two women?

And why are you only concerned with same-sex couples adopting children, or receiving surrogate children? If it's about receiving parantage from both sex of parents then why don't i ever see people such as yourself arguing against single-parent adoptions?

[CoolClaret]

I'm sure there are benefits of being raised by a mother and a father. But what makes you so sure there aren't benefits of being raised by two men, or two women?

And why are you only concerned with same-sex couples adopting children, or receiving surrogate children? If it's about receiving parantage from both sex of parents then why don't i ever see people such as yourself arguing against single-parent adoptions?

For the record I'm totally against single parent adoption,
I'm firmly in the opinion that having a child is a lifestyle choice and not a right- and all that can be done to ensure an optimal upbringing for a child SHOULD be done.

[DCWat]

This continuous theme of people being dinosaurs for being perceived to ‘not move or adapt to changing times’ is nonsense.

Change takes a long time and yes, there will always be a crossover period where you have the more modern views alongside those with a more old school view. A view that is probably well engrained and passed on to children takes time to change, it doesnt make someone a dinosaur.

I wouldnt be at all surprised if today’s self professed modern thinkers are in the future, up in arms about how things they have always seen as normal, suddenly being called out as old thinking.

Being fair minded should surely be afford understanding for those ‘dinosaurs’ but it doesn’t seem to be the case on here.

For what it’s worth, I’d rather see a child with loving, capable, responsible and caring parents no matter what their sexuality. Too many kids being brought up in homes that have none of these essentials.

[Imploding Turtle]

For the record I'm totally against single parent adoption,
I'm firmly in the opinion that having a child is a lifestyle choice and not a right- and all that can be done to ensure an optimal upbringing for a child SHOULD be done.

So how does that work if you're "totally" against single parent adoption? If the only option is a child being bounced around in the system of foster parents, why are you then still totally opposed to them receiving the stable parenting that would come from an adoption?

It seems to me that you're more interested in tradition than the welfare of the child.

[CoolClaret]

So how does that work if you're "totally" against single parent adoption? If the only option is a child being bounced around in the system of foster parents, why are you then still totally opposed to them receiving the stable parenting that would come from an adoption?

It seems to me that you're more interested in tradition than the welfare of the child.

Adhering to the tradition prevents this problem no?

OK to meet in the middle, I'll agree that if the option for a kid put up for adoption is between a single parent or being bounced around various Foster families vs a Stable Sam sex couple, then I'll take the latter - despite it not being optimal.

Do I think same sex surrogacy should be encouraged? Absolutely not.

[TVC15]

I'm actually quite staggered at some of the comments on this thread.

Just when you think the world has moved on from this kind of debate this message board is a good reminder of how much in the dark ages some people still are.

There are literally thousands of examples each year of dysfunctional and abusive homes from "traditional" different sex parents. And all this proves is that there are basically good and bad people whatever their sexuality.

Irrespective of whether a child is brought up by a single mother or father, or a mother and a father, or a mother and a mother etc the only reason as to whether that child will be brought up well or not is whether they are good or bad parents.

[CoolClaret]

I'm actually quite staggered at some of the comments on this thread.

Way to totally misread everything I've posted.

If you can totally convince me that same sex parents have completely no difference than different sex parents, then go for it.

Until then, I'll believe it to be sub-optimal, albeit better than an abusive mother/parent family.

Also, a point not raised, who's to say that if this surrogacy to same sex parents becomes widespread then neglect in same sex parentage doesn't become a major problem?

[martin_p]

Also, a point not raised, who's to say that if this surrogacy to same sex parents becomes widespread then neglect in same sex parentage doesn't become a major problem?

Ok, I’m calling you out as a homophobe.

[Imploding Turtle]

Way to totally misread everything I've posted.

If you can totally convince me that same sex parents have completely no difference than different sex parents, then go for it.

Until then, I'll believe it to be sub-optimal, albeit better than an abusive mother/parent family.

Also, a point not raised, who's to say that if this surrogacy to same sex parents becomes widespread then neglect in same sex parentage doesn't become a major problem?

Well, think about it. Which pair of parents are more likely to neglect their child; a pair of parents who accidentally have a child, or a pair of parents who deliberately have a child?

Now think about how likely it is for a same sex couple to accidentally have a child.

Neglect in same-sex parents will never be as big a problem as neglect among opposite-sex parents. Naturally.

[TVC15]

Way to totally misread everything I've posted.

If you can totally convince me that same sex parents have completely no difference than different sex parents, then go for it.

Until then, I'll believe it to be sub-optimal, albeit better than an abusive mother/parent family.

Also, a point not raised, who's to say that if this surrogacy to same sex parents becomes widespread then neglect in same sex parentage doesn't become a major problem?

Your last sentence proves exactly what I am saying. It is not about the sex of the parents its about whether they are good or bad people. Of course the more same sex parents there are would mean that then there will be increases in cases of neglect.

Your other points are complete rubbish - why the hell should I convince you that same sex parents are not different to different sex parents ? Nothing would convince someone who has already made the mind up. You admitted yourself that the extent of your research into this issue is about a couple of hours ago when you picked off the first search from Google.

My views are based on pure logic and common sense that there is absolutely no reason that a child cannot have the same good upbringing from a same sex couple than a different sex couple (or the same bad upbringing).

I've already asked on this thread what can mixed sex parents give a child that same sex parents cannot and not had any answers....except the ridiculous one about children being bullied at school.

[CoolClaret]

Ok, I’m calling you out as a homophobe.

Not an argument.
I'm such a homophobe that I have a gay barber and friends with quite a few gay people.

Neglect in same-sex parents will never be as big a problem as neglect among opposite-sex parents. Naturally.

That's a fair comment, I'll accept that.

I meant rather that a same sex relationship can still deteriorate and become sour just as a different sex relationship can and end in neglect.

[Imploding Turtle]

That's a fair comment, I'll accept that.

I meant rather that a same sex relationship can still deteriorate and become sour just as a different sex relationship can and end in neglect.

Of course.

[TVC15]

It would be interesting to hear what your gay "friends" thought of your views. I suspect they would not be your friends for much longer.

Sounds a bit like those racist people who like to point out they have black friends.

I would advise you not to air these views to your gay barber when he has a pair of scissors in his hand !!