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

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    What a patronising position. Thanks but we don't need your permission or your approval; your opinion on gay people's reproductive decisions is absolutely worthless and of no consequence to anyone but yourself.

    It sounds like you don't like the idea of gay people having what heterosexual people can have; children who are the genetic product of both parents' families. Gay people also can have the entirely natural desire to procreate and have children to carry on their family line, in name and in genetic patrimony. And with modern technology we can do it too.

    So no, I don't have any moral obligation to care for other people's children. You adopt if you want to, but I'm quite happy to have my own.


    I am gay.Didn't I just say I have the same opinion on straight people who use IVF? I'm actually advocating gay people being parents here.I'm just saying that people should adopt more.If two people cannot have kids naturally then why waste all that money just so that people can say they are genetic parents. Gene's don't matter.There are lots of biological fathers who treat their kids like crap.Your parents are the ones who look after you and raise you not just donate genes.Its just my opinion though and I don't think that's particularly homophobic to say that.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    Unnatural? I have no idea what you could possibly mean (without being hypocritical or inconsistent, on which I give you the benefit of the doubt... for now). Please define "unnatural".



    Forgive me if your impotent command that I marry a woman seems worthless and laughable to me.

    I will marry a man, thank you. We will have children who are both our genetic progeny, thank you. Your permission or approval means nothing to me, I neither require nor desire it.



    According to who? Are you claiming to speak for the sky dictator or just for yourself?
    A man and a man can't naturally have children. That's just not how it works. The right environment for a child to grow up in is with a mother and a father. That's how it has always worked.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ladbants)
    A man and a man can't naturally have children.
    A diabetic cannot "naturally" survive. You cannot "naturally" communicate with me from great distance as you are now. Humans cannot "naturally" propel themselves through the air at great speed, or "naturally" launch themselves into space. There are many children who are not "naturally" viable and are only kept alive by means of modern technology.

    There are many things humans cannot do naturally that you approve of. Please outline clearly why reproduction and sexuality, as a category, is to be considered separate from all other categories?

    Please also be honest and clearly state whether you are claiming to speak on behalf of the sky dictator, or merely yourself. Please also state clearly whether you believe in the sky dictator.

    That's just not how it works
    No, you are confused. It does work; you see, I put my sperm together with my partner's sisters egg, it gets fertilised and implanted in a surrogate womb. One, two, three; bish, bash, bosh. It works. And remarkably, we don't even need (or care for) for permission from some right-winger.

    We won, you lost. You presented your pitiful arguments and the general public laughed you out of the room. We steamrolled right over you. We don't need anything from you; not permission, not approval, nothing.

    The right environment for a child to grow up in is with a mother and a
    At this point your comment just reads like, "Blah, blah, blah. I'm a boorish reactionary who has some psychological need to seem shocking". It's as risible as any leftist second-year drama student who puts on some sex-obsessed play out of a desire to shock and seem edgy.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Robby2312)
    .If two people cannot have kids naturally then why waste all that money just so that people can say they are genetic parents
    Bizarre logic. People opt to have their own children all the time, rather than adopt (even though this option is open to heterosexuals too). They have a reasonable desire to procreate, to continue the human species and their family line.

    If you feel inferior to heterosexuals such that you do not believe gay people need have these normal desires, that's your business. The whole point is that we don't need other people's approval or permission to make our own procreative decisions. Those who want to adopt may adopt. Those who have a natural desire to procreate and pass on their genetic patrimony may do it.

    Gene's don't matter
    That's a matter of opinion. For some people, they matter. For some people, they desire to continue their family line, their family name, to see the admixture of their own DNA with that of their partner to create a totally new human being, a product of their love and their biology. It is for each person to decide what they want to do.

    What is risible is the idea that gay people need not concern themselves with having these normal desires, they should content themselves with being a genetic dead end, with missing out on what every one of their forbears to the beginning of time has experienced.

    There are lots of biological fathers who treat their kids like crap
    That's a non-sequiter.

    I don't think that's particularly homophobic to say that.
    To say that gay people shouldn't procreate, I'm sorry but it's homophobic.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    I put my sperm together with my partner's sisters egg, it gets fertilised and implanted in a surrogate womb.
    That seems messy, how would you decide which one is to have their sperm used? If I were in such a situation, I would want the child to have my sperm to be mine properly so called, I'm not sure I would regard it as equally mine if it was actually a child of my partner and my sister.

    For all intents and purposes, the child would be my niece/nephew...

    None of this is to say I do not support or at all judge this option, I just find it interesting.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    Bizarre logic. People opt to have their own children all the time, rather than adopt (even though this option is open to heterosexuals too). They have a reasonable desire to procreate, to continue the human species and their family line.

    If you feel inferior to heterosexuals such that you do not believe gay people need have these normal desires, that's your business. The whole point is that we don't need other people's approval or permission to make our own procreative decisions. Those who want to adopt may adopt. Those who have a natural desire to procreate and pass on their genetic patrimony may do it.



    That's a matter of opinion. For some people, they matter. For some people, they desire to continue their family line, their family name, to see the admixture of their own DNA with that of their partner to create a totally new human being, a product of their love and their biology. It is for each person to decide what they want to do.

    What is risible is the idea that gay people need not concern themselves with having these normal desires, they should content themselves with being a genetic dead end, with missing out on what every one of their forbears to the beginning of time has experienced.



    That's a non-sequiter.



    To say that gay people shouldn't procreate, I'm sorry but it's homophobic.
    We are all genetic dead ends.The human race will go extinct sooner or later.Thats a certainty.People who don't think so do not understand the scale of time and space.Gay people cannot procreate without medical science.Thats not homophobia.Its fact.As such they should think carefully about whether it would be better to adopt or not.I don't see how it's homophobic.Tbh we could do with less straight people procreating as well.Some kids need parents and gay people want kids.Easy solution.Put the kids who want parents with gay parents.Surely that's a better option than messing around with genetics.I don't feel inferior to heterosexuals.Personally I don't want kids.I would rather go travel the world or do something more fun rather than be tied down by kids and marriage.I think gay people should embrace the freedom that would come from not having kids actually.I hate the idea of settling down.But anyway that's just an opinion.I don't really care either way.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Beautiful story, beautiful ending. However these types of stories happen very rare. They were so lucky because they had the chance to move to another country with less hate on gay people.
 
 
 
  • 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?
  • 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.