Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Why are they both shirtless

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Michael_98)
    Why are they both shirtless
    I also asked that question, as yet I have had no answer.

    These men seem really creepy, there's something unbelievably self-absorbed about the entire scene
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Michael_98)
    Why are they both shirtless
    I have found the answer! Apparently it is because skin-to-skin contact is beneficial for babies (something to do with bonding and neurochemicals), this is said to be quite common for heterosexual parents too.

    The explanation makes me hate them less
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MostUncivilised)
    I have found the answer! Apparently it is because skin-to-skin contact is beneficial for babies (something to do with bonding and neurochemicals), this is said to be quite common for heterosexual parents too.

    The explanation makes me hate them less
    Did you happen to find the answer in one of the many posts in this thread that contained it?

    Edit: It may have been you that mentioned that it's creepy because it seems to be all about them and not the baby.

    Either way, I think the problem is that these are just two photos of which I presume there are many, with different focal points. Also a baby is a baby is a baby - it's not going to have much of a facial expression to look back on later in life, whereas their emotion is something worth recording for later. Presumably the photos will serve to remind them of how they felt. Kids aren't generally that interested in hearing about or seeing a record of their own birth (or childhood, for that matter). It's always all for the parents. We're just not used to dealing with seeing such private photos, especially ones where men show such raw emotion. I think most photos of men sincerely and openly crying would make many people feel a bit awkward. Sadly.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ronove)
    Did you happen to find the answer in one of the many posts in this thread that contained it?
    Sorry, I didn't read all the posts before

    I did ask a couple of pages back, and no-one proffered an answer. As I was unaware of the reason, I imagined it was a kind of creepy, new-age thing. That combined with what I saw as attention-seeking (having birth photos) and that they seemed to have snatched the baby from the woman and were now ignoring her, turned me off the whole thing
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ronove)
    It's always all for the parents. We're just not used to dealing with seeing such private photos, especially ones where men show such raw emotion. I think most photos of men sincerely and openly crying would make many people feel a bit awkward. Sadly.
    I think that what made me most uncomfortable was its release on the internet. They reminded me so much of that revolting Essex gay couple, Tony and Barry Drewitt-Barlow, who are unbelievably self-absorbed, who are planning to sue the church because it won't allow them to have a church wedding and they insist on getting what they want.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=429716SZGfM

    To be honest, it seems to me like for some of these new gay dads, this is much more about their own self-aggrandisement, their own selfishness, their own self image. The kids are like an accessory or an uber-pet
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ronove)
    It's always all for the parents. We're just not used to dealing with seeing such private photos, especially ones where men show such raw emotion. I think most photos of men sincerely and openly crying would make many people feel a bit awkward. Sadly.
    To follow up my previous comment, the gay dads who it seems to me are really in it for self-aggrandisement, to merely have the latest thing, an uber-pet/accessory, are usually the more effeminate ones, the kind of guys who are obsessed with fashion and status. That Essex gay couple have 5 kids, ffs

    These self-absorbed gay dads are usually quite common (in the class sense), have fake tans, not well educated. Given parenting by gay couples is a fairly new thing, I think it would be far better for them to be parented by more conservative parents, middle-class, well educated, couples who will be able to provide them with a sound upbringing and send them to good schools.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MostUncivilised)
    I have found the answer! Apparently it is because skin-to-skin contact is beneficial for babies (something to do with bonding and neurochemicals), this is said to be quite common for heterosexual parents too.

    The explanation makes me hate them less
    ah thank you still a bit weird

    Posted from TSR Mobile

    E.g
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MostUncivilised)
    To follow up my previous comment, the gay dads who it seems to me are really in it for self-aggrandisement, to merely have the latest thing, an uber-pet/accessory, are usually the more effeminate ones, the kind of guys who are obsessed with fashion and status. That Essex gay couple have 5 kids, ffs

    These self-absorbed gay dads are usually quite common (in the class sense), have fake tans, not well educated. Given parenting by gay couples is a fairly new thing, I think it would be far better for them to be parented by more conservative parents, middle-class, well educated, couples who will be able to provide them with a sound upbringing and send them to good schools.
    I would expect there to be a bias towards that kind of family on the adoption side, but when it comes to surrogacy etc, I don't see how anyone can justify trying to keep parenthood away from any kind of 'type' they dislike. Social services exist to cover any and all families and should be able to do their job. I certainly think they could do with being more active though. Not necessarily with removals but with support of vulnerable families at the very least. I'm not sure that preventing people from having kids before they've ever shown themselves to be incapable is the way forward though.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ronove)
    I would expect there to be a bias towards that kind of family on the adoption side, but when it comes to surrogacy etc, I don't see how anyone can justify trying to keep parenthood away from any kind of 'type' they dislike. Social services exist to cover any and all families and should be able to do their job. I certainly think they could do with being more active though. Not necessarily with removals but with support of vulnerable families at the very least. I'm not sure that preventing people from having kids before they've ever shown themselves to be incapable is the way forward though.
    I take your point, I completely agree you can't prevent people from parenting their own children (which is what they are in a surrogacy situation). I just wish they wouldn't have kids
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by miscounted_time)
    Firstly, incest and homosexuality are not on the same level. One is a sexuality and one is an act. Sexuality exists regardless of whether or not it is acted upon whereas incest doesn't exist until an act is committed. So arguably they cannot be compared on the same level either.

    Secondly, incest is not new to society. As I stated in an earlier post which you ignored incest and inappropriate attraction to family members has existed since time immemorial, it hasn't just popped up because society has become more accepting of other peoples sexuality. Incestuous acts where frowned upon then and still are today. Show me evidence where it's accepted as a societal norm.

    Thirdly, homosexuality existed long before Abrahamic religion. Same sex unions were recognised and respected in some of the most powerful and advanced civilisations in history. All society is doing is reversing a wrong and a change that religion imposed upon civilisation.
    Religion swept across civilisations and took away the rights of a group of people (homosexuals). This is no different than a civilisation sweeping across another and taking slaves ( a group who also lost their rights ).

    Even when the slave trade was abolished if you weren't white you where second class. Eventually through campaigning and people becoming less ignorant equality was achieved.

    Similarly with homosexuals, even though they were no longer imprisoned (in Britain ) were still second class. They to are now having the rights that religion removed returned to them.

    It is perfectly acceptable for someone to use an analogy regarding laptops in this argument. You cannot condemn something as "unnatural" but advocate the use of entirely unnatural technologies, medical advancements etc. the moment you do that you lose all credibility. If you are against the "unnatural" then I suggest you forgo vaccinations, anaesthetics and go and live in a tech free community like the Amish. That way, although they may not agree with it, people could actually respect your argument regarding "unnatural".


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I never said homosexuality and incest are on the same level. I specifically said 'two dads having a son'. That is an act, isn't it? I mean, some people can't help what their sexuality is and I respect that but they don't have to go changing society's norms and try to have a child.
    As for your second point, sorry I didn't see your previous post and I didn't know about that fact. But anyway, how do you know that in the future, things like incest won't be accepted? How do you know somebody won't turn around and start asking for rights for incestuous relationships because they should have the same rights as others because they 'love each other'.
    I don't have evidence that it's accepted as a societal norm because it isn't. But you can just see how things are progressing around the world by the case of the mother and son.
    Thirdly, that is what's wrong- that they're reversing the change. Religiously speaking, I agree with the original change.
    Finally, it's not perfectly acceptable to use laptops in this argument. Of course they're unnatural but then so is almost everything else. The unnatural I'm talking about is completely different. The unnatural I'm talking about is two dads having a son. Using technology isn't a bad unnatural. Two dad's having a son is. They can't be compared.
    • Community Assistant
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    I think if they are going to love and care for the baby, it's perfectly fine. Some babies don't even have one loving parent; this little boy has two.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by minimarshmallow)
    Technology can be compared to the topic we're currently discussing, because that part of the debate said that gay parenting was wrong because it was unnatural, and that was an example of something else that is unnatural, but it's not wrong.

    The fact that something happened while considered abnormal doesn't mean that one day it may become normal, there has to be another reason.
    How is it on the same level?
    Define abnormal? Why is abnormal bad? If abnormal is not bad, what exactly is your argument?
    Abnormal: 'deviating from what is normal or usual, typically in a way that is undesirable or worrying.' E.g. incestuous relationships, two dads having a son. They are on the same level because they are both as bad to society as each other.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nadine_08)
    I never said homosexuality and incest are on the same level. I specifically said 'two dads having a son'. That is an act, isn't it? I mean, some people can't help what their sexuality is and I respect that but they don't have to go changing society's norms and try to have a child.
    As for your second point, sorry I didn't see your previous post and I didn't know about that fact. But anyway, how do you know that in the future, things like incest won't be accepted? How do you know somebody won't turn around and start asking for rights for incestuous relationships because they should have the same rights as others because they 'love each other'.
    I don't have evidence that it's accepted as a societal norm because it isn't. But you can just see how things are progressing around the world by the case of the mother and son.
    Thirdly, that is what's wrong- that they're reversing the change. Religiously speaking, I agree with the original change.
    Finally, it's not perfectly acceptable to use laptops in this argument. Of course they're unnatural but then so is almost everything else. The unnatural I'm talking about is completely different. The unnatural I'm talking about is two dads having a son. Using technology isn't a bad unnatural. Two dad's having a son is. They can't be compared.
    The awkward moment when you repeat that the unnatural you're talking about is different from technology like a bad record, but don't say in what way it's different.

    I wonder where the religious right get their bad name from. It's almost as if your reason is based entirely in prejudice!
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Two loving people meet their son. Nothing new there.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by letsbehonest)
    Err they are touching someone elses vagina juices..

    Argghh that is bloody disgusting...honestly, those gays and vaginas. I'm so glad I'm not gay and don't have to go near someone elses vaginal fluids...

    ...wait :afraid::afraid:
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    The awkward moment when you repeat that the unnatural you're talking about is different from technology like a bad record, but don't say in what way it's different.

    I wonder where the religious right get their bad name from. It's almost as if your reason is based entirely in prejudice!
    It should be clear in what way it is different. I don't need to fully justify my points when they are already clear enough. It's just that some people don't want to accept them and so I'm not going to waste my time trying to explain to closed-minded people such as yourself.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    cute
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nadine_08)
    Abnormal: 'deviating from what is normal or usual, typically in a way that is undesirable or worrying.' E.g. incestuous relationships, two dads having a son. They are on the same level because they are both as bad to society as each other.
    Okay, so why is two dads having a son wrong? You can't just say it's abnormal and leave it at that, you have to justify why it is so.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nadine_08)
    It should be clear in what way it is different. I don't need to fully justify my points when they are already clear enough. It's just that some people don't want to accept them and so I'm not going to waste my time trying to explain to closed-minded people such as yourself.
    It's not.

    You need to fully justify your points if you want them to be taken seriously in the debate.

    I'm incredibly open-minded, as I assume the person you quoted is as well. I'm willing to listen to your side and see if it convinces me. But you haven't actually presented your side properly, so it isn't convincing and it isn't adding to this debate, and therefore I'm not going to change my mind if you don't at least attempt to give me a reason to.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.