Surrogacy for same sex couples

Blackrod · Post by **Blackrod** » Fri Mar 30, 2018 7:29 am

The sandal wearers are having a lie in this morning. It's also a bit too early for popcorn. It's good to see people are not afraid to express there own views without being battered down by the liberals.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Fri Mar 30, 2018 7:41 am

I'm not!

And again, no problem with people having different views, its the inability to accept that you are going to be challenged and that you might look, well, look a bit silly.

And it has to be said, isn't it amazing that not all gays are the same? That some like getting drunk and acting like dicks, and some don't. Gosh, its almost like they are normal people or something.

Normal enough to be parents even.

Blackrod · Post by **Blackrod** » Fri Mar 30, 2018 7:46 am

Who needs papers anymore with entertainment like this. I might even have to stop buying The Daily Mail

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Fri Mar 30, 2018 7:58 am

Lancasterclaret wrote:I'm not!

Go on - be honest. Admit it.

You're wearing sandals right now, aren't you?

Lancasterclaret wrote:And it has to be said, isn't it amazing that not all gays are the same? That some like getting drunk and acting like dicks, and some don't. Gosh, its almost like they are normal people or something.
Normal enough to be parents even.

Well, in terms of surrogacy - you mean "normal enough to be allowed to be parents".

Yes, I'm sure gay people will make just as good parents as straight people in all honesty. But that isn't the difficult question.

The difficult question is, do children raised in single-sex households rare as well as children raised in heterosexual households?

We know that the kind of household a child is raised in significantly alters life-chances. Children raised by single mums have far more difficult and troublesome lives than those raised in married households. Even children raised in cohabiting households fare worse than those raised in married households.

It's a sensitive debate, no doubt, but there are quite a few misnomers flying about.

First - nobody really knows if gay households can provide the same kind of environment as the gold standard for raising children: heterosexual married households. For obvious reasons gay people have historically not been troubled by the travails of child-rearing. You might have an anecdotal tale that supports one side or the other but there isn't the mass data required to make a firm overall judgment.

Second - Although nobody has quite said it here please beware those who claim that all a child needs is "love". They need a lot more than that. Love might be the greatest requirement but it has to stand side by side with shelter, nourishment, discipline and an endless list of other attributes.

Third - Yes, fostering a child with nice gay parents is definitely better than leaving a child in a gutter. No doubt about that. But the debate stretches further: Should we simply aim to slightly improve children's lives or should we always attempt to place children in the kind of household that we know provides them with the best environment (ie. heterosexual married households)?

It's natural for us, as a species, to be risk averse. It helps keep us alive. But without attempting things and without seeing how new ideas work, we do not progress.

That's why I'm not opposed to gay adoption but I'm still sceptical of it as we all should be - for the very simple reason that it is completely untested.

We should cautiously try it out without jumping to conclusions. We need to be prepared to accept the results whatever they may be. It may be that gay household exceed straight household in their ability to raise children. It may be that gay household do not have the right dynamic to raise well-rounded children into adult. We simply do not have the data to make a large scale verdict.

When we have the data to make a considered judgment we should do so - based on the information of how well the children's lives transpired. On nothing other than that. Until then, there's no point "celebrating" gay adoption and there's no point in utterly condemning it either.

We have to see how it works out.

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Fri Mar 30, 2018 8:02 am

Lancasterclaret wrote:And it has to be said, isn't it amazing that not all gays are the same? That some like getting drunk and acting like dicks, and some don't. Gosh, its almost like they are normal people or something.

Exactly.

So why was the gay pride event in Nottingham never policed like "normal people" events are?

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Fri Mar 30, 2018 8:09 am

I'm not going to disagree with being cautious Rowls, and I think we are all agreed that the priority is the well being of the child.

And I think we all agree that a child will do better being placed with a loving family than being bought up in a children's home.

Then this is where it gets to the stage its got to.

Now in the last thirty years, we now have loads of stay at home dads, dads who are the primary carer for their kid(s), and no one bats an eyelid.

For me, and I appreciate that its only my view, I don't see the difference between two parents who are a man and a woman and two parents who are the same sex.

And has already been mentioned, there are thousands of kids having miserable lives with heterosexual parents.

I agree that it is a tough one though, but again, I take your point that you believe that its better to have two heterosexual parents, and I can certainly see that BUT I see willing loving potential parents being denied a chance to get a kid out of the system that won't do him/her any good.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Fri Mar 30, 2018 8:12 am

I'm not an expert of policing carnivals/festivals/celebrations Rowls so I've absolutely no idea.

I've never been to one either now you mention it, but that is more to do with just not liking standing around looking at floats and dancers!

Blackrod · Post by **Blackrod** » Fri Mar 30, 2018 8:16 am

That sounds quite moderate and reasonable LancasterClaret. Can't disagree with that.

Duffer_ · Post by **Duffer_** » Fri Mar 30, 2018 8:22 am

Rowls wrote:For obvious reasons gay people have historically not been troubled by the travails of child-rearing.

Whereas all the heteros have to study parenting from the age of 5 to 16 and supplement their studies with 20 hours of practical experience per week?

Has the nurture gene been bred out of those gays or socialised out of them through generation after generation of being gay?

I wasn't historically troubled by the travails of child rearing until I had one. Do you have children Rowls?

UTC!

chekhov · Post by **chekhov** » Fri Mar 30, 2018 8:22 am

Rowls, you say we have to wait for the data on same sex couple adoption. The problem is, as I understand it, data in the realm of child development is incredibly difficult to interpret. There are just too many variables, i.e. environmental, social, genetic. You could spend years sifting the data then years arguing about the conclusions. I would have thought it was better to focus on finding stable couples, financially and otherwise that can provide the necessary care, love and support the child needs.

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Fri Mar 30, 2018 8:22 am

Lancasterclaret wrote:Now in the last thirty years, we now have loads of stay at home dads, dads who are the primary carer for their kid(s), and no one bats an eyelid.

We don't really have "loads of stay at home dads". Not really. We don't. There are some out there but they are a tiny minority.

Lancasterclaret wrote:For me, and I appreciate that its only my view, I don't see the difference between two parents who are a man and a woman and two parents who are the same sex.

The difference (which you apparently do not see) between a heterosexual couple and a same-sex couple is that the same-sex couple are the same sex but the heterosexual couple are one of each! You really ought to be able to see this.

Lancasterclaret wrote:And has already been mentioned, there are thousands of kids having miserable lives with heterosexual parents.

It's not relevant to the debate though. There are hundreds of thousands of dogs that don't get walked every day too.

Lancasterclaret wrote:I agree that it is a tough one though, but again, I take your point that you believe that its better to have two heterosexual parents, and I can certainly see that BUT I see willing loving potential parents being denied a chance to get a kid out of the system that won't do him/her any good.

I don't just "believe" that heterosexual, married households are the best environment to raise children - it is provable. Study after study after study proves this. It isn't just a "belief" of mine. It's true.

Can gay couples provide the same kind of environment or match the life-outcomes that children from married households attain? Nobody knows. There simply isn't the data. Not that I know of.

Gay couples have been adopting children for a while time now. I don't believe the sexuality of a couple is taken into account any more. If you know otherwise then post away.

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Fri Mar 30, 2018 8:25 am

chekhov wrote:Rowls, you say we have to wait for the data on same sex couple adoption. The problem is, as I understand it, data in the realm of child development is incredibly difficult to interpret. There are just too many variables, i.e. environmental, social, genetic. You could spend years sifting the data then years arguing about the conclusions. I would have thought it was better to focus on finding stable couples, financially and otherwise that can provide the necessary care, love and support the child needs.

Of course it's difficult to interpret but there's plenty of it out there.

And the results of study after study after study are unanimous - married households by far the best way to bring up children.

It isn't best to find "stable couples" - it is best to find married couples.

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Fri Mar 30, 2018 8:29 am

chekhov wrote:You could spend years sifting the data then years arguing about the conclusions.

Studies showing married households offer better life chances to children. First page of google only:

https://www.brookings.edu/research/coha ... -big-ways/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

https://ifstudies.org/blog/for-kids-par ... changeable" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

https://www.christianpost.com/news/chil ... dy-174448/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED476114.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://parenthood.library.wisc.edu/Pope ... rried.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

https://www.ifs.org.uk/comms/comm114.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf ... 03.00876.x" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10. ... 14050-e-19" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

OK, some of these are articles referencing the studies but all the studies are unanimous - married households are best for children.

The conclusions are obvious and not at all debatable. The data for this is MASSIVE.

chekhov · Post by **chekhov** » Fri Mar 30, 2018 8:31 am

Rowls wrote:Of course it's difficult to interpret but there's plenty of it out there.

And the results of study after study after study are unanimous - married households by far the best way to bring up children.

It isn't best to find "stable couples" - it is best to find married couples.

Okay, I don't have the data so I can't counter that suffice to say if we have more children than adoptive parents, let's just find stable couples.
As for surrogacy I'm not a huge fan. I don't think there should be a "right" to have children, especially in this overpopulated world we live in.

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Fri Mar 30, 2018 8:34 am

chekhov wrote:Okay, I don't have the data so I can't counter that suffice to say if we have more children than adoptive parents, let's just find stable couples.
As for surrogacy I'm not a huge fan. I don't think there should be a "right" to have children, especially in this overpopulated world we live in.

I don't know the figures but I'm under the impression there were lots of white middle class married couples wanting to adopt but that they have hitherto been refused adoption of babies who aren't the same skin colour / religion as them. Don't know what the current state of affairs is though.

Yes, as you say, adoption and surrogacy are slightly different subjects.

claptrappers_union · Post by **claptrappers_union** » Fri Mar 30, 2018 8:36 am

Marriage is for chumps

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Fri Mar 30, 2018 8:36 am

Marriage is for champs

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Fri Mar 30, 2018 8:39 am

The difference (which you apparently do not see) between a heterosexual couple and a same-sex couple is that the same-sex couple are the same sex but the heterosexual couple are one of each! You really ought to be able to see this.

As parents. maybe I should have clarified it. I don't see the difference as parents.

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Fri Mar 30, 2018 8:41 am

Lancasterclaret wrote:I'm not an expert of policing carnivals/festivals/celebrations Rowls so I've absolutely no idea.

I suspect that the police don't want to be seen as "homophobic".

As some on here have proved, it's impossible to have sensible debates without accusations of "homophobia" flying around.

Duffer_ · Post by **Duffer_** » Fri Mar 30, 2018 8:42 am

Lancasterclaret wrote:As parents. maybe I should have clarified it. I don't see the difference as parents.

It's obvious. The same-sex couple haven't historically been troubled by the travails of child rearing.

UTC!

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Fri Mar 30, 2018 8:45 am

Lancasterclaret wrote:As parents. maybe I should have clarified it. I don't see the difference as parents.

Well I happen to think that a parent's gender is rather key to their parenting. All my mate's mum's were, well, rather motherly. And all my mate's Dad's were, erm, fatherly.

None of us had two parents who were motherly and none of us had two parents who were fatherly.

That's one of the main reasons I'm sceptical about gay parenting - a single-sex household won't ever have the same dynamic as a heterosexual household.

All this is a giant experiment so let's see how it goes. Whilst we all hope it goes well, we have to be ready to accept the results whether we like them or not.

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Fri Mar 30, 2018 8:46 am

Rowls wrote:
Can gay couples provide the same kind of environment or match the life-outcomes that children from married households attain? Nobody knows. There simply isn't the data. Not that I know of.

So let’s assume that the data becomes available and it shows children brought up in same sex couples do better than children that aren’t. Do you think the people on here who have a problem with same sex parents will suddenly be calling for heterosexual couples to be banned from being surrogate parents?

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Fri Mar 30, 2018 8:46 am

What does that even mean though?

Its two people who have (more than likely) been kids themselves and are now adults. What does the fact that its not historically the norm have to do with it when you are looking at it rationally?

My experience of being a parent was exactly the same as a couple of blokes doing it would be. We all have ideas that sound ace about how to be the perfect parent and they all last about ten minutes!

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Fri Mar 30, 2018 8:48 am

Rowls wrote:Studies showing married households offer better life chances to children. First page of google only:

https://www.brookings.edu/research/coha ... -big-ways/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

https://ifstudies.org/blog/for-kids-par ... changeable" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

https://www.christianpost.com/news/chil ... dy-174448/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED476114.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://parenthood.library.wisc.edu/Pope ... rried.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

https://www.ifs.org.uk/comms/comm114.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf ... 03.00876.x" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10. ... 14050-e-19" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

OK, some of these are articles referencing the studies but all the studies are unanimous - married households are best for children.

The conclusions are obvious and not at all debatable. The data for this is MASSIVE.

What relevance has this to the subject of the thread?

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Fri Mar 30, 2018 8:59 am

martin_p wrote:So let’s assume that the data becomes available and it shows children brought up in same sex couples do better than children that aren’t. Do you think the people on here who have a problem with same sex parents will suddenly be calling for heterosexual couples to be banned from being surrogate parents?

It's all rather hypothetical and bizarre isn't it martin_p but yes, if study after study weights gay parents at providing better life outcomes than married heterosexuals (as they currently do in favour of married couples) I'd happily say they should have priority for adoption.

martin_p wrote:What relevance has this to the subject of the thread?

It shows that married couples provide better life-chances than non-married couples and single parents. It demonstrates clearly that the kind of household in which a child is raised has a very strong effect on their later lives.

PS: Congratulations on winning my award for this thread.

chekhov · Post by **chekhov** » Fri Mar 30, 2018 9:01 am

Rowls wrote:I don't know the figures but I'm under the impression there were lots of white middle class married couples wanting to adopt but that they have hitherto been refused adoption of babies who aren't the same skin colour / religion as them.

What??? The same religion? So who is deciding what religion a child or baby has? If this is the case that is crazy. And if we have children waiting for adoptive parents of the right skin colour this is also outrageous. In any event I don't think we should be putting obstacles in the way of good parents when the priority should be to give vulnerable children a stable upbringing.
As for gay versus straight (married) couples being the best parents, okay maybe we've got to wait for the data, but in the meantime I wouldn't have any qualms about gay couples adopting. Our society has made great strides in sexual equality, I think we're moving in the right direction, so I think generally children of gay couples are going to receive less and less discrimination and ostracism than in the past which I guess would be one of the potential negatives.
It's an interesting thread this. Can you imagine this level of debate on such a subject, say a mere 20 years ago?

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Fri Mar 30, 2018 9:05 am

Lancasterclaret wrote:What does that even mean though?

Its two people who have (more than likely) been kids themselves and are now adults. What does the fact that its not historically the norm have to do with it when you are looking at it rationally?

My experience of being a parent was exactly the same as a couple of blokes doing it would be. We all have ideas that sound ace about how to be the perfect parent and they all last about ten minutes!

Presuming this was aimed at me - it means that men and women are different.

If you are raised in a household by a man and a woman (let's call them, for the sake of this argument, 'mum' and 'dad') then you benefit from a dynamic which includes a man and a woman.

If you are raised in a single-sex parent household you do not have the same dynamic. You either have two men or (much more likely) two women.

If you suppose that gender differences do not exist (which you may, and I suspect you might) then I suppose this is entirely irrelevant as you simply have "two people" in each example however I would argue that there are strong gender differences between the sexes and that these are innate.

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Fri Mar 30, 2018 9:09 am

chekhov wrote:What??? The same religion? So who is deciding what religion a child or baby has? If this is the case that is crazy. And if we have children waiting for adoptive parents of the right skin colour this is also outrageous. In any event I don't think we should be putting obstacles in the way of good parents when the priority should be to give vulnerable children a stable upbringing

Hmmmm, would appear it's still happening.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/h ... 10796.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Same story reported in a proper paper (the Telegraph) but behind a paywall so I've posted the silly edition above.

I thought they'd put an end to it but apparently not.

Reading this BBC article from 2011 it only says that "guidelines" have changed:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-12513403" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

chekhov · Post by **chekhov** » Fri Mar 30, 2018 9:15 am

I agree about gender differences, and the benefits of having, you know, a mother figure and a father figure. My father died when I was 10 and I'm sure that lack of male presence or of male mentors had a negative effect on my development.
I still think it is love, stability, and decent environment and educational opportunities are the most crucial factors.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Fri Mar 30, 2018 9:23 am

More aimed at Duffer to be honest Rowls!

If you suppose that gender differences do not exist (which you may, and I suspect you might) then I suppose this is entirely irrelevant as you simply have "two people" in each example however I would argue that there are strong gender differences between the sexes and that these are innate.

Again, not going to disagree with that but I happen to think (in the context of duffers post) that the welfare and happiness of the child is more important than the gender make up of the parents, or any historical significance.

chekhov · Post by **chekhov** » Fri Mar 30, 2018 9:24 am

Rowls wrote:Hmmmm, would appear it's still happening.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/h ... 10796.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Re. the article above I would say that the crucial thing is that the child is brought up without a religion. I hate the notion of "Muslim children" or "Sikh children". They should be left to decide what they want to be when they are mature enough to decide. I'm also completely against the idea of faith schools (But that should be the subject of another thread!).

chekhov · Post by **chekhov** » Fri Mar 30, 2018 9:27 am

Nice chatting with you folks. I've got to do some work now!

ClaretAndJew · Post by **ClaretAndJew** » Fri Mar 30, 2018 9:29 am

I don't care how happy children are as long as they are brought up by extremely heterosexual female and extremely heterosexual male parents.

Rather see a child starve and beaten by a traditional male/female couple than be happy and well fed by a couple of queers.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Fri Mar 30, 2018 9:30 am

Been putting off these accounts all morning.

We are not religious and our other member of staff is a Jehovahs Witness (they don't celebrate Easter) so we are just doing a normal day.

Bfcboyo · Post by **Bfcboyo** » Fri Mar 30, 2018 9:32 am

Just reading through and there seems to be a misunderstanding between adoption and surrogacy across this thread.

Let the gays adopt the poor orphans if they are bored of their silly little handbag dogs.

Lets not mess about with nature to pander to societys latest trends.

chekhov · Post by **chekhov** » Fri Mar 30, 2018 10:26 am

Bfcboyo wrote:Just reading through and there seems to be a misunderstanding between adoption and surrogacy across this thread.

Let the gays adopt the poor orphans if they are bored of their silly little handbag dogs.

Lets not mess about with nature to pander to societys latest trends.

Hello Boyo

CoolClaret · Post by **CoolClaret** » Fri Mar 30, 2018 10:45 am

In essence what me and Rowls were arguing is that there are more intangibles involved in successfully raising kids than simply showing love, which unfortunately cannot be fully fulfilled by homosexual couples - needs a man and a woman.

That's not to say that they should be allowed to adopt unwanted, neglected children as it's a much better alternative.

However can we all agree that perhaps it isn't the best idea to allow for homosexual surrogacy, especially as there are kids out there in need of a loving home.

Duffer_ · Post by **Duffer_** » Fri Mar 30, 2018 11:45 am

CoolClaret wrote:However can we all agree that perhaps it isn't the best idea to allow for homosexual surrogacy, especially as there are kids out there in need of a loving home.

No.

UTC!

chekhov · Post by **chekhov** » Fri Mar 30, 2018 11:57 am

CoolClaret wrote:In essence what me and Rowls were arguing is that there are more intangibles involved in successfully raising kids than simply showing love, which unfortunately cannot be fully fulfilled by homosexual couples - needs a man and a woman.

That's not to say that they should be allowed to adopt unwanted, neglected children as it's a much better alternative.

However can we all agree that perhaps it isn't the best idea to allow for homosexual surrogacy, especially as there are kids out there in need of a loving home.

Don't agree either with your premise or your conclusion.

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Fri Mar 30, 2018 1:23 pm

Rowls wrote:Of course it's difficult to interpret but there's plenty of it out there.

And the results of study after study after study are unanimous - married households by far the best way to bring up children.

It isn't best to find "stable couples" - it is best to find married couples.

So married gay couples are ok?
That's the prerequisite you've just set..

Being raised by mixed gender married parents doesn't guarantee a better standard of life, nor does it mean a child will grow up to be a decent human being.
We only know it works because society and the system has blocked gay couples for a long time from becoming parental units.

As I've said, my friend's son has a better life now his mum has settled down with another woman than he did when his mum and dad were a couple, simply because his dad was an arse.

Mixed gender couples currently have the head start, but thankfully that's changing.

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Fri Mar 30, 2018 1:26 pm

CoolClaret wrote:In essence what me and Rowls were arguing is that there are more intangibles involved in successfully raising kids than simply showing love, which unfortunately cannot be fully fulfilled by homosexual couples - needs a man and a woman.

That's not to say that they should be allowed to adopt unwanted, neglected children as it's a much better alternative.

However can we all agree that perhaps it isn't the best idea to allow for homosexual surrogacy, especially as there are kids out there in need of a loving home.

But if the homosexual can't adopt a child and can't have their own through surrogacy then what are they meant to do to fulfill their desire to raise children as a family unit?

What right does society have to stop them doing it?

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Fri Mar 30, 2018 1:29 pm

Rowls wrote:Presuming this was aimed at me - it means that men and women are different.

If you are raised in a household by a man and a woman (let's call them, for the sake of this argument, 'mum' and 'dad') then you benefit from a dynamic which includes a man and a woman.

If you are raised in a single-sex parent household you do not have the same dynamic. You either have two men or (much more likely) two women.

If you suppose that gender differences do not exist (which you may, and I suspect you might) then I suppose this is entirely irrelevant as you simply have "two people" in each example however I would argue that there are strong gender differences between the sexes and that these are innate.

What about if you're raised in a single parent household?

Or are we going to ban that happening too?

Do we stop blokes donating to their stuff so single women can have a kid when it suits them?

CoolClaret · Post by **CoolClaret** » Fri Mar 30, 2018 1:34 pm

Sidney1st wrote:But if the homosexual can't adopt a child and can't have their own through surrogacy then what are they meant to do to fulfill their desire to raise children as a family unit?

What right does society have to stop them doing it?

I meant to put 'That's not to say that they shouldn't be allowed to adopt unwanted, neglected children as it's a much better alternative.'

I messed up on my grammar/usage - my bad.

-I.e. Should be allowed to adopt but not have their own through surrogacy.

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Fri Mar 30, 2018 1:39 pm

So why is it ok for them to have someone else's child and not their own?

That's just a bizarre idea..

"We don't think you can raise your own child properly, so have someone else's unwanted child instead..."

CoolClaret · Post by **CoolClaret** » Fri Mar 30, 2018 1:53 pm

As there is a real need for loving homes for unwanted/ neglected kids, I'd wager that the more surrogacy would result in less adoptions, sort of thing.

I'm not easy to be honest with playing creator via surrogacy, I see no issue with adoption though.

Bfcboyo · Post by **Bfcboyo** » Fri Mar 30, 2018 3:22 pm

Sidney1st wrote:But if the homosexual can't adopt a child and can't have their own through surrogacy then what are they meant to do to fulfill their desire to raise children as a family unit?

What right does society have to stop them doing it?

Nine nine nine. Ze are fine to adopt it is surrogacy we shall never permit.

Bfcboyo · Post by **Bfcboyo** » Fri Mar 30, 2018 3:23 pm

u

Sidney1st wrote:So why is it ok for them to have someone else's child and not their own?

That's just a bizarre idea..

"We don't think you can raise your own child properly, so have someone else's unwanted child instead..."

It saves the ophans from the grooming gangs. Whilst appeasing the whims of the whimsical.

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Fri Mar 30, 2018 5:16 pm

CoolClaret wrote:In essence what me and Rowls were arguing is that there are more intangibles involved in successfully raising kids than simply showing love, which unfortunately cannot be fully fulfilled by homosexual couples - needs a man and a woman.

Whilst that may turn out to be true it's not quite what I said. To clarify I have said the data we currently have strongly shows that married households (and this refers to heterosexual marriage simply because there hasn't been time to study gay marriage and rearing children) are by far the best environments to raise children. Do married gay couples provide exactly the same benefits as regular married couples? Nobody could say definitively as of yet.

Sidney1st wrote:So married gay couples are ok?
That's the prerequisite you've just set..

Hi Sidney, I think I've been precise enough with my words not to have to clarify this.

Sidney1st wrote:What about if you're raised in a single parent household?
Or are we going to ban that happening too?
Do we stop blokes donating to their stuff so single women can have a kid when it suits them?

"So what you're saying is..."

No.

I'm not saying that.

I'm saying what I've said. It's all there in writing in the posts that have my name attached to them.

TVC15 · Post by **TVC15** » Fri Mar 30, 2018 5:53 pm

CoolClaret wrote:In essence what me and Rowls were arguing is that there are more intangibles involved in successfully raising kids than simply showing love, which unfortunately cannot be fully fulfilled by homosexual couples - needs a man and a woman.

That's not to say that they should be allowed to adopt unwanted, neglected children as it's a much better alternative.

However can we all agree that perhaps it isn't the best idea to allow for homosexual surrogacy, especially as there are kids out there in need of a loving home.

You are the gift that just keeps on giving.
Aah your gay friends will be delighted that you are “allowing” them to adopt other people’s children but not have any of their own.
Do you have a list of other things you like to tell they can and can’t do ?
Are they allowed to sit next to you on the school bus ?

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Fri Mar 30, 2018 6:05 pm

Rowls wrote:Whilst that may turn out to be true it's not quite what I said. To clarify I have said the data we currently have strongly shows that married households (and this refers to heterosexual marriage simply because there hasn't been time to study gay marriage and rearing children) are by far the best environments to raise children. Do married gay couples provide exactly the same benefits as regular married couples? Nobody could say definitively as of yet.

Hi Sidney, I think I've been precise enough with my words not to have to clarify this.

"So what you're saying is..."

No.

I'm not saying that.

I'm saying what I've said. It's all there in writing in the posts that have my name attached to them.

Oh you've been precise alright.

Gay people can't have kids whether or not they're married and can provide a stable loving environment is basically what you're saying.

It's fine for straight people to run about popping them out and creating single parent families but wo-betide decent human beings who want their own children.

Yes you've been very bloody precise despite your attempts to word it otherwise.

Well I think that's an absolutely moronic and archaic opinion, because there are plenty of gay couples out there who're capable of providing a better, more stable home than many heterosexual people are.

It doesn't matter if one gender is missing, heterosexual single parent families prove this.

I was raised by an auntie and barely saw my natural mum as a kid whilst my dad was busy with his new family, but I've turned out better than a number of kids I know who were raised in what you're classing as a normal household.

Gay people deserve the chance to show they can and will raise children who will grow up to be as normal as anyone else.