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

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by letsbehonest)
    Err they are touching someone elses vagina juices..
    And probably piss, blood and possibly ****.

    Sooo vagina juice is probs the least of their worries.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by redferry)
    Because skin to skin bonding is really important when the child is born.
    I was very reassured by the fact they were doing that personally.

    So maybe its best you leave off having kids for a while until you know the first thing about parenting
    I'd not heard that before.

    Haha, ouch to be fair I'm not planning on having kids for a few years yet, and I'd probably aim to adopt those who a 3+ so shh
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sanctimonious)
    Its a natural right, like the right to life. Taking a child from its biological mother is disgusting. Doing the same to animals like dogs is equally disgusting.

    The very fact you or anyone want to deny a child or baby animal the love of its true biological mother is disgusting.
    What if the biological mother was the one that didn't want the child and put it up for adoption? At least every child with gay parents is wanted.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Limpopo)
    Well i guess this matter is one in which we all have highly polarised views.

    To those who criticise or oppose the naysayers, please do not assume that we are homophobic or "anti gay".

    I personally couldnt give a toot if someone is gay, straight or likes having sex with goats.

    However it is my personal view that for two men to procure a child in this way is abhorrent, abnormal and unnatural.

    That is all i will say as i could never ever convince others who disagree that it is so.
    You oppose a couple getting a child through completely legal, ordinary means? Methodology that is used by countless numbers of couples regardless of sexuality? You are anti-gay you're just not willing to lie in the bed you've made.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Regardless of what anyone thinks, this kid is going to have a hard time in school.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sanctimonious)
    Its a natural right, like the right to life. Taking a child from its biological mother is disgusting. Doing the same to animals like dogs is equally disgusting.

    The very fact you or anyone want to deny a child or baby animal the love of its true biological mother is disgusting.
    Oh we're just claiming natural rights?
    I guess then I'll just claim that it's my natural right to hold your hand and ask you to kiss me. Where shall we meet to fulfil this natural right that I have.

    I also assume you're vegan, as animals in the meat industry and even in the wild are constantly taken from their mothers, whether they're newly born or not.

    Now come on, lets hold hands whilst I whisper sweet nothings to you, it is my natural right after all.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by aaronrimmer)
    What if the biological mother was the one that didn't want the child and put it up for adoption? At least every child with gay parents is wanted.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I've already made my position clear on this. I'm not against same sex couples adopting but I do believe there should be an age restriction on it of so many months etc. to ensure the child benefits from a natural maternal bond with its biological mother. To deny a child this is disgusting. What's wrong with waiting to adopt and then nurturing the child after he or she has already benefited from that natural bond early in development?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Skip_Snip)
    I'd not heard that before.

    Haha, ouch to be fair I'm not planning on having kids for a few years yet, and I'd probably aim to adopt those who a 3+ so shh
    Well if you ever want to chat about adoption feel free to message me, my brother was adopted and both my parents were social workers so I know a lot about the process
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by A5ko)
    Regardless of what anyone thinks, this kid is going to have a hard time in school.
    Y'know, I'm not too sure. When I was in secondary school (final year) a year seven started who had two dads, I can't remember him having any trouble.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sanctimonious)
    I've already made my position clear on this. I'm not against same sex couples adopting but I do believe there should be an age restriction on it of so many months etc. to ensure the child benefits from a natural maternal bond with its biological mother. To deny a child this is disgusting. What's wrong with waiting to adopt and then nurturing the child after he or she has already benefited from that natural bond early in development?
    I'm disputing that the bond you speak of isn't important but there are plenty of people out there who didn't have this natural bond that haven't suffered because of it


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Skip_Snip)
    Y'know, I'm not too sure. When I was in secondary school (final year) a year seven started who had two dads, I can't remember him having any trouble.
    Yeah my friend had two mums and she never had any trouble.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    It shouldn't matter what sexuality a child's parents, all that matters is that a child has parents that love them


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    Oh we're just claiming natural rights?
    I guess then I'll just claim that it's my natural right to hold your hand and ask you to kiss me. Where shall we meet to fulfil this natural right that I have.
    Oh so we go down the old sensationalist and immature route now. Go figure. Why do you think it's fine for a child to not go through a key early developmental stage with its biological mother? Why do you want to deny a child a maternal bond?

    I also assume you're vegan, as animals in the meat industry and even in the wild are constantly taken from their mothers, whether they're newly born or not.
    I'm a pollotarian. I think the meat industry is wrong however even though i eat chicken but that's an industry that will continue to exist. That's an industry set up for that exact reason. I also think the emergence of supermarkets is wrong as it pushes out small businesses. Doesnt mean I'm never going to shop there.

    My point was quite transparently more aimed at puppies being taken from their mother early on to be presents for people. That is not right either. Puppies should he allowed to bond with their mother.

    Now come on, lets hold hands whilst I whisper sweet nothings to you, it is my natural right after all.
    You've just perfectly summed up the maturity levels of TSR. Can't even have a debate like an adult.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sanctimonious)
    Its a natural right, like the right to life. Taking a child from its biological mother is disgusting. Doing the same to animals like dogs is equally disgusting.

    The very fact you or anyone want to deny a child or baby animal the love of its true biological mother is disgusting.
    So my brother being taken from his biological parents with learning difficulties who couldn't even look after themselves, lived in squalour and had already had three kids removed and been prosecuted for animal neglect was disgusting was it? Riiiiight.

    By the way, he isn't damaged, before you ask.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    I don't find the photo even remotely disturbing (it wouldn't have occurred for me to do so). It's a lovely picture and it makes me smile looking at it.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sanctimonious)
    I've already made my position clear on this. I'm not against same sex couples adopting but I do believe there should be an age restriction on it of so many months etc. to ensure the child benefits from a natural maternal bond with its biological mother. To deny a child this is disgusting. What's wrong with waiting to adopt and then nurturing the child after he or she has already benefited from that natural bond early in development?
    Surely if they wait to adopt the child will have bonded with its mother and thus be traumatized when separated, whereas if they have it from birth it will know no different and simply associate both "dads" as its parents?

    Also don't get your argument, there are many "mothers" who are horrific at parenting and are a risk to their new child, hence social services intervene and put them up for adoption to new families right away. A baby will not miss out on lacking a bond with a crack-whore who just happened to pop it out when its provided with different caring parents from the off-set.

    I suppose the only vaguely relevant argument about this whole thing for me would be two guys with a daughter say, may struggle to bring her up quite as well as she would be with a mothers guidance. But that said if you want to use that sort of thinking then you'd have to label single parent families as equally if not more problematic. I was raised by a single parent, I don't think a lack of a father figure impacted me negatively in any way.

    It seems odd because its taboo for us culturally, but so were homosexuals even being open about their sexuality not too long ago, so was a mixed race couple being together, let alone having a child etc. In 100 years we will likely be looked at with disdain for being so up in arms over it. After all, there are so many children stuck in foster care/waiting for adoption, surely two loving parents, even of the same sex, is a better option than staying with Adoption centers until they're 18m drifting from place to place unable to form proper bonds with anyone?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sanctimonious)
    If nature intended for 2 same sex people to have children, why can't they? Unless you have made a breakthrough in the field of biology then there is no chance of what you said happening.

    I don't see the issues with same sex couples adopting but at the same time I think like with any adoption the child should be with its mother in the early stages and adopted after a certain period of time. The maternal bond especially in the early stages is important. To deny a child this is quite frankly disgusting and disturbing because nature and nurture are both as important and to dismiss one in favour of the other is beyond absurd.
    I never said 'nature intended it', I just don't see why people are so keen to slam same-sex couples for wanting to become parents. I have a heterosexual friend with a young daughter and she's a terrible mother. She takes barely any responsibility for her child and openly admits she was an 'accident' (although she'll prefix that with 'happy' as an afterthought, if you push her on the issue). She's been the same way since her daughter was a babe in arms, so I will have to respectfully disagree with you, I'm afraid.

    Data from early tests of 'maternal deprivation' are, at best, correlational and widely criticised. There are no reasons two men or women could not fulfil the role of providing support and stimulation for a child that a mother or heterosexual couple could.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gwilym101)
    You oppose a couple getting a child through completely legal, ordinary means? Methodology that is used by countless numbers of couples regardless of sexuality? You are anti-gay you're just not willing to lie in the bed you've made.
    It isnt really a question of what i oppose or agree with. My views are simply an expression of my beliefs and life experience. I happen to believe that in the hierarchy of parentage the no 1 position would be one in which the parents were of opposite sex and are in a loving committed relationship.

    Two guys mixing sperm in a petri dish following a mutual masturbaion session and then piping it into some misguided woman comes way down the list.

    I wouldnt say i was anti gay but im sure that others will insist that I am. I cant say it troubles me. How can one quantify whether someone is anti gay or pro gay? Being anti or pro with regard to sexuality is the same as saying well im anti sun or anti moon.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sanctimonious)

    I'm a pollotarian. I think the meat industry is wrong however even though i eat chicken but that's an industry that will continue to exist. That's an industry set up for that exact reason. I also think the emergence of supermarkets is wrong as it pushes out small businesses. Doesnt mean I'm never going to shop there.

    My point was quite transparently more aimed at puppies being taken from their mother early on to be presents for people. That is not right either. Puppies should he allowed to bond with their mother.
    .
    So you think the meat industry is wrong, but support probably the most intensive and cruel area of it (poultry production), you think supermarket chains are wrong, but will shop at them anyway. You think puppies being taken early are wrong...but guess you'd take one for the right price? So really...you stand for nothing? Words..but no action.

    Maybe you will let a child stay with an manically depressive drug addict who will probably starve the baby, so y'know it can bond with its biological mother, because clearly there's no way a child can survive without being able to do that. I imagine you'll stand by your convictions when it suits, which I imagine is when it involves homosexuals wanting a child.

    EDIT: Oh hey quoted you twice, didn't realise lol. Don't take it personally bro, I'd hug you if you were within reach (no homo of course).
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by aaronrimmer)
    I'm disputing that the bond you speak of isn't important but there are plenty of people out there who didn't have this natural bond that haven't suffered because of it


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    You are of course correct. However I still think the best a child can have is the natural bond and then the correct nurturing. Who the nurturing comes from isn't really important as long as they do right by the child. The natural part is important and a child should be with its mother early on in development.

    The argument of most on here is one extreme to the other. Nature is right. Nurture is right. No, the best thing for the child is both.
 
 
 
  • 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
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
    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.