Year 12s: what will be the first way you research your future options? >>

Two dads meet their newborn son

Scroll to see replies

You clearly do have a problem with it by trying to be a smart Alec and picking out little words and making an issue from it.

No I do not at all so stop making silly claims. There's nothing at all to do with being a smart Alec. Its biological fact. Let me ask you have you ever seen a single man of any sexuality give birth/have a child? The answer is no.

Reply 141

Sanctimonious

Original post by lilyobz

just a side note, not sure what religion you are but doesnt you god also deny some children their mothers, i.e wars and conception problems? + pretty sure some orphans have grew up and turned out alright?

I'm not religious. Im a staunch atheist.

Reply 142

mrfletch

Original post by AcronymOfHashtag

God also left his only son to die, despite having the power to stop it so I wouldn't quote him regarding parenting....

(He's also not real! Mwahahahahahahaaaaa!)

He also impregnated a 14 year old girl without her permission in a time when everyone would accuse her of adultery and possibly kill her.

Reply 143

applicant2014

Original post by AcronymOfHashtag

God also left his only son to die, despite having the power to stop it so I wouldn't quote him regarding parenting....

(He's also not real! Mwahahahahahahaaaaa!)

Just leave him alone. He can't and doesn't even know how to back up his claims.

Btw, brilliant post! :biggrin:

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 144

Sanctimonious

No. You think this is all to do with advantages and disadvantages. Its not. Its about maternal love which you wish to deny certain children.

You have stated again and again that you think this is the case. But when we look at the information you fail to ever come up with a child being disadvantaged. Either it's such a strong disadvantage that there needs to be some natural right (which not everyone agrees there even are natural rights, so just assuming that there are and this is one of them is plainly stupid) OR if there is a disadvantage it's very small.

No I did not so stop lying. You've completely missed the point. I think its important that a child has the maternal bond and love with its biological mother. Does this mean the child will be disadvantaged later in life? No. Never claimed it did.

As children are not automatically autonomous are you also going to pander to their natural right to be brought up without junk food until they can decide if they want junk food or not? I mean it's bad for you so having it is a disadvantage.

Children should eat natural food yes.

Finally, on the meat industry:
The fewer consumers it has the smaller it is. You can't claim that you think it's terrible but that you'll still give it your money because you enjoy it (and why else would you give it your money) without sounding like an idiot.

Yes I can. Many others do as well. Just because you disagree with something it does not mean you have to take a moral stand against it. If I took a moral stand against everything I objected to then I'd have bugger all time to live my life. Do you take a moral stand against everything you disagree with? Clearly not. Nobody does. Sometimes in life you just have to get on with things.

Reply 145

miscounted_time

Original post by SarcasticMel

Enough said. You don't see the guy or girl in a normal couple topless usually.

Normal couple?

But yes actually you do. It's a common thing and I'm surprised at the amount of people on here that are unaware of it.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 146

stargirl63

I understood your post - as sophisticated as it was.

It was the way you phrased "it is not wrong to do x,y,z" etc. However, you didn't actually say or remind anyone that just because it isn't wrong, doesn't mean it's right. Therefore, I just wanted to confirm your post, as evidently, it was incomplete.

Thanks.

Reply 147

Lontttt530

Original post by Den Haag

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2679534/Love-no-sexual-preference-The-tearful-moment-two-dads-meet-newborn-son-time.html

I'm all for full gay rights but something in me finds that photo very disturbing.

I am all for gay rights, but this will effect the kids mental state when he/she older

Reply 148

Jacob-C

Original post by Xcalibur

God designed it so that only a woman can give birth with a man.

Can he pass me the blueprints please, I'd like to see them.

Reply 149

miscounted_time

Original post by Limpopo

I agree partly but the ideal or me is a stable male/female parent home within a loving committed relationship.

This child..
May never know its mother
Its mother gave birth purely because of a business arrangement
It most probably wont breast feed from its natural mother
It may grow up with psychological and social issues

Now i agree that the same things might happen in a male/female relationship but they are far less likely. We really dont have a handle on long term outcomes of children born to homosexual fathers via surrogates.

I wonder how prevalent it is? Is it a new found aspiration borne out of similar births via celeb donors such as Elton John and others?

Evidence please that a child is more likely to suffer from psychological/social issues if raised by homosexual rather than heterosexual parents.
Current research shows that children raised by homosexuals tend to be more stable,balanced individuals and tend to perform at a higher level academically than many of their peers raised by heterosexual parents.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 150

miscounted_time

Original post by Limpopo

Clearly and that is because it is much more prevalent and the norm. We have no idea yet what will happen as a result of children born due to homosexual sperm donation to a surrogate. It is likely becoming more prevalent thats for sure. Who will have custody of such a child if/when the relationship fails?

I imagine it would be a similar to what happens if a heterosexual relationship breaks down i.e custody whether joint or on a primary basis will be awarded depending on which offers the most stability to the child.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 151

missfats

So is that their real child?

:eek:

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 152

WitnessMO

Oh thats sweet! They is nothing wrong with having two dads, two mums or one parent. Deal with it.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 153

Exon

Original post by shilpasajan

But what if you're a faithful christian? You're taught that God exists, therefore you have full right to use it in an argument. By saying it's ignorant to do so, you're disrespecting the teachings of Christianity...

The problem is not that you believe but that you expect others to do so as well.

Reply 154

Sanctimonious

Because its fundamentally wrong to separate a newborn and their mother unless the mother rejects them as is sometimes the case in nature too.

And if you could go beyond leaning on the naturalistic fallacy, it'd be great.

Its only a naturalistic fallacy to you as you're too narrow minded to accept other peoples views. This has further been proven in this thread where you've called other posters ********s just for not sharing your viewpoint.

I can't believe you think it is fine to separate a child and mother at birth to be honest. If the mother is not rejecting the child what reason is there to deprive the child of experiencing the maternal bond?

You seem happy to deprive a child of this to further societal advancements and appease others. I find that disturbingly tragic.

Reply 155

Ragnaroklepourfe

gross and disgusting I hope the social workers take the kid away from them...

Reply 156

Skip_Snip

Original post by Le Franglais

the fact that being a child in a gay or lesbian couple increases your chance of sexual abuse by tenfold

Oh that's interesting, I've not heard this before, what studies or source did you hear it from?

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 157

Xcalibur

Original post by Jacob-C

Can he pass me the blueprints please, I'd like to see them.

What, are you arguing that men can conceive with other men?

Reply 158

miscounted_time

Original post by Le Franglais

Gay marriage goes hand in hand with gay adoption, but not necessarily in all cases.

•

An astonishing 10 times more likely to have been “touched sexually by a parent or other adult caregiver.”

http://www.theimaginativeconservative.org/2013/04/a-non-religious-case-against-same-sex-marriage.html

I've taken this example as a non-religious case against gay marriage.

I don't need, or want anyone to start bringing up the oh-so-common excuse that "not all heterosexual couples look after their children the right way" ... This arguably a tiny proportion on global scale - the fact that being a child in a gay or lesbian couple increases your chance of sexual abuse by tenfold is quite alarming to say the least.

Have you read this article.
1. The title in the link alone suggest an agenda.
2. As for the author:
Dr. Michael Bauman is Professor of Theology and Culture at Hillsdale College, where he also is Director of the Christian Studies program.
He is Scholar-in-Residence for Summit Ministries’ Summit Semester Program
co-editor, with David Noebel, of The Schwarz Report, a monthly conservative watchdog of leftist action and infiltration across our culture.
He is an ultra conservative from the Christian Right.

3. As for the article itself. It offers up no cited peer reviewed literature. This is just the ramblings of a single man, his article has no credible basis whatsoever, it is literally just his point of view.

4. At one point he did make a weak reference within the article to a single piece of research carried out in Texas where he infact twisted the results and took the findings entirely out of context to fit his own agenda.
If he truly believed his believes we're solid he would have no need to deliberately mislead people by manipulating the results of a study.

5. His claims ( and that is all they are) have infact been refuted by credible peer reviewed research.

Posted from TSR Mobile