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

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    Are you incapable of reading. People were claiming that it was wrong for those reasons. My post was very obviously about that as it quoted them. Go look up the word 'context' before making posts and stop reading mine out of that said word.
    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.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 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.
    BECAUSE IT WAS A RESPONSE. Not a statement to be taken by itself.

    I also did not post the finer points of meta ethics. But then neither did you. You should post them or your post will be incomplete.


    You made a stupid post and don't appear to understand the term 'context'. Either look it up and learn it, or don't bother posting. It really isn't that hard.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Den Haag)
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/ar...-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
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 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.


    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.


    Children should eat natural food yes.



    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.
    So if you now don't belief there is a disadvantage to not having that maternal bond, why do you claim that there should be that right?

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

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (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
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (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
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    So is that their real child?

    :eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Oh thats sweet! They is nothing wrong with having two dads, two mums or one parent. Deal with it.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    So if you now don't belief there is a disadvantage to not having that maternal bond, why do you claim that there should be that right?
    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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    gross and disgusting I hope the social workers take the kid away from them...
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (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?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (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?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (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.theimaginativeconservativ...-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
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    There is a reason why two men can not naturally conceive and two women cannot naturally conceive. simples.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    BECAUSE IT WAS A RESPONSE. Not a statement to be taken by itself.

    I also did not post the finer points of meta ethics. But then neither did you. You should post them or your post will be incomplete.


    You made a stupid post and don't appear to understand the term 'context'. Either look it up and learn it, or don't bother posting. It really isn't that hard.
    So will yours. But I already pointed that out.

    P.S - LOL
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I think there are a lot of people in the world that would be grateful to have a parent(s) that loves them and will do everything for them.

    And all this talk about whats natural and not, have any of you not heard about those gay male swans who take an egg from a female and raise the child together? And also the fact that until recently, dying from labour wasn't too uncommon, so the child wouldn't have their biological mother anyway. The baby won't remember whether it was being breast fed but a woman or if he was being cradled by the dads anyway. As long as the fathers love them the child will live a life better than a huge portion of the world who have no parents, or are abused, or have parents who cant support them and give them any food. Why do people have to become so picky on parents that seem a lot better than others
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    I don't like this at all. There are psychological issues at play here. A baby is programmed to be with it's mother when it's young. Who will breastfeed it too?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Exon)
    The problem is not that you believe but that you expect others to do so as well.
    No, we don't expect others to believe aswell; they just need to understand where we're coming from, and not call it ignorant
 
 
 
  • 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
    Will you be richer or poorer than your parents?
    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.