The Student Room Group

This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

What would you do if your children are homosexual

Scroll to see replies

Original post by maskofsanity
I assume you mean using an egg doner? I don't think people are ignoring it, they just don't agree that it's the same thing as a normal grandchild.


Donor*

It's not quie the same but it's pretty similar. Plus with the new methods which are being trialled and researched - the donor egg's DNA can be removed and replaced with the other parents so both are biological parents. It's slightly different to normal conception but would you oppose to normal parents having IVF?

I think it's the same as a normal child as the child would still be born naturally, they would have both parents DNA and it therefore is practically the same. If you also disagree with surrogates if you had to get one to carry your child for you and your girlfriend would you say no? It's double standards.
Original post by Bluffroom
Exactly, it's been mentioned countless times in this thead but people like to ignore what they don't want to read


It depends where you live and if you are a man or a woman. For a Woman it is fairly easy to get inseminated, but for a man to find a woman who is willing to bear a child for someone else. Adoption is of course an option, but very many countries don't adopt to homosexuals.
Original post by Skip_Snip
I'd abort them, there and then


How would you know they were going to be gay if they haven't even been born yet?


Posted from TSR Mobile
Reply 143
Avatar for mmmpie
mmmpie
12
Original post by maskofsanity
I assume you mean using an egg doner? I don't think people are ignoring it, they just don't agree that it's the same thing as a normal grandchild.


Tread carefully, this use of the word normal brings out my homicidal rage... Frankly anyone who feels that way deserves neither children nor grandchildren, because they're *******s.

My parents have absolutely no right to make demands about my hypothetical future children, and certainly not about the circumstances of their conception.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Bluffroom
Donor*

It's not quie the same but it's pretty similar. Plus with the new methods which are being trialled and researched - the donor egg's DNA can be removed and replaced with the other parents so both are biological parents. It's slightly different to normal conception but would you oppose to normal parents having IVF?

I think it's the same as a normal child as the child would still be born naturally, they would have both parents DNA and it therefore is practically the same. If you also disagree with surrogates if you had to get one to carry your child for you and your girlfriend would you say no? It's double standards.


*Quite
*Parents'

I meant that it is not exactly the same in the sense that, right now, same sex couples who use IVF will have a child whose genes are partly from another person. I.e. they have a biological connection to the child but it is not biologically the same as a heterosexual couple having a child. As for your question, if me or my partner could not have a child, I would not use a donor, no.

Of course, it will still be a child in a family who loves him/her, I was just responding to your claim that people were ignoring the fact that same sex couples can produce grandchildren, which is not strictly true but partially true.
Original post by skumgummi
It depends where you live and if you are a man or a woman. For a Woman it is fairly easy to get inseminated, but for a man to find a woman who is willing to bear a child for someone else. Adoption is of course an option, but very many countries don't adopt to homosexuals.

This doesn't mean that it shouldn't be allowed. People who have a low sperm count are also less likely to have a child but they aren't told that they are therefore inferior and should not have children.
Original post by mmmpie
Tread carefully, this use of the word normal brings out my homicidal rage... Frankly anyone who feels that way deserves neither children nor grandchildren, because they're *******s.

My parents have absolutely no right to make demands about my hypothetical future children, and certainly not about the circumstances of their conception.

Posted from TSR Mobile

I agree with this - if I don't have children because I wish not to, my parents should not have a sense of entitlement and be annoyed with me. It's my choice not theirs. Also even if I don't my sisters could - but still then they shouldn't expect grandchildren - they aren't mandatory for your lif to go on.
Original post by Bluffroom
This doesn't mean that it shouldn't be allowed. People who have a low sperm count are also less likely to have a child but they aren't told that they are therefore inferior and should not have children.


I never said anyone is inferior, I am merely stating facts. It is difficult for homosexuals to have children. Which results in it being difficult for me to become a grandparent.
Original post by mmmpie
Tread carefully, this use of the word normal brings out my homicidal rage... Frankly anyone who feels that way deserves neither children nor grandchildren, because they're *******s.

My parents have absolutely no right to make demands about my hypothetical future children, and certainly not about the circumstances of their conception.


Why? Normal simply means typical or "on average" when looking at the population of humans as a whole. It's not ambiguous, people just like to try and complicate it.

As for your second point, I don't really understand what you're saying? I pointed out the biological difference, nothing more. If you want to extrapolate that as me not agreeing with same sex couples having children then that would be incorrect.
Original post by maskofsanity
*Quite
*Parents'

I meant that it is not exactly the same in the sense that, right now, same sex couples who use IVF will have a child whose genes are partly from another person. I.e. they have a biological connection to the child but it is not biologically the same as a heterosexual couple having a child. As for your question, if me or my partner could not have a child, I would not use a donor, no.

Of course, it will still be a child in a family who loves him/her, I was just responding to your claim that people were ignoring the fact that same sex couples can produce grandchildren, which is not strictly true but partially true.


Touché with the spelling - but I'm on my phone.

Right now - at this moment that is the issue, that one of the parents will not have a biological link but who cares - family is family. I know people who couldn't have children as they were infertile and they got a sperm donation to take their place so they could have a child - do you think less of that? They are their child and think of them as they are their own flesh and blood - it shouldn't matter.

It isn't partially true - it's 100% true as it has been proven that you can have a donor egg cell which has the other parent's DNA placed inside so both parents are biological parents. It's just a matter of time before this could become the norm.
Original post by skumgummi
I never said anyone is inferior, I am merely stating facts. It is difficult for homosexuals to have children. Which results in it being difficult for me to become a grandparent.


I think that its quite rude that you have such a sense of entitlement over grandchildren.
Original post by Bluffroom
Touché with the spelling - but I'm on my phone.

Right now - at this moment that is the issue, that one of the parents will not have a biological link but who cares - family is family. I know people who couldn't have children as they were infertile and they got a sperm donation to take their place so they could have a child - do you think less of that? They are their child and think of them as they are their own flesh and blood - it shouldn't matter.

It isn't partially true - it's 100% true as it has been proven that you can have a donor egg cell which has the other parent's DNA placed inside so both parents are biological parents. It's just a matter of time before this could become the norm.


It was tongue-in-cheek, I just find pointing out typos a bit silly on a forum.

But they're not their own flesh and blood and no, I don't think worse of them at all - in fact, I wish I could accept that myself, but personally, I would have trouble with it and highly doubt I would use a donor. I think it would trouble me further if I was infertile because then, essentially, I would be a father to a child my girlfriend/wife had with another man. Maybe I put too much emphasis on genes and traits, etc. but that is my natural response. My view could change in the future.

Right, but what about the donor's DNA - her genes/traits?
Reply 151
Avatar for mmmpie
mmmpie
12
Original post by maskofsanity
Why? Normal simply means typical or "on average" when looking at the population of humans as a whole. It's not ambiguous, people just like to try and complicate it.

As for your second point, I don't really understand what you're saying? I pointed out the biological difference, nothing more. If you want to extrapolate that as me not agreeing with same sex couples having children then that would be incorrect.


You're going to have to explain to me how "conceived using technology" makes a child abnormal, because I really don't get it. The child is exactly the same as they would be anyway. There is no difference, save for the circumstances of conception.

My point was that "but I want grandchildren" is an appalling line of thinking. People don't get to have that kind of say in their offspring's lives.

Posted from TSR Mobile
I think, that along with most people, I would prefer it if my children were straight but if they were homosexual, I wouldn't care at all. Would still love them exactly the same. So if my kid was homosexual, what would I do? Absolutely nothing, except provide the love and support than any parent gives their children.
Original post by gmarshall7
How would you know they were going to be gay if they haven't even been born yet?


Posted from TSR Mobile


I was kidding, which a handful of neggers didn't seem to pick up :tongue:
Original post by mmmpie
You're going to have to explain to me how "conceived using technology" makes a child abnormal, because I really don't get it. The child is exactly the same as they would be anyway. There is no difference, save for the circumstances of conception.

My point was that "but I want grandchildren" is an appalling line of thinking. People don't get to have that kind of say in their offspring's lives.


The difference is the genes/traits from the third party and hence, the parents are partly biologically connected but not full biological parents. Again, I must stress I am just pointing out the scientific fact not disagreeing with the choice.

There is a big difference between wanting grandchildren and demanding them.
I never said the latter.
Reply 155
Avatar for mmmpie
mmmpie
12
Original post by maskofsanity
The difference is the genes/traits from the third party and hence, the parents are partly biologically connected but not full biological parents. Again, I must stress I am just pointing out the scientific fact not disagreeing with the choice.

There is a big difference between wanting grandchildren and demanding them.
I never said the latter.


Oh I see, fixation on biology. I know where you're coming from now. Personally I think the genetic aspect of being a parent is trivial, but if you think that's what matters then go right ahead.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by mmmpie
Oh I see, fixation on biology. I know where you're coming from now. Personally I think the genetic aspect of being a parent is trivial, but if you think that's what matters then go right ahead.


Fair enough, and I'm sure there are lots of people who will agree with both of us.
I'm strongly religious but I would have absolutely no problem with that - being religious does not have to equal being prejudiced.
Is this really a question? FFS.
Original post by Ezekiella
I'm strongly religious but I would have absolutely no problem with that - being religious does not have to equal being prejudiced.


I'm guessing some sort of Abrahamic religion. Just out of curiosity, how can you call yourself "insert abrahamic religion" and not hate homosexuals? I mean it's quite clearly stated in all of the books that homosexuality is to be hated.

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you