lesbians and IVF....
17 August 2005, 10:35 AM
#61
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 267
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmmm, difficult one!
This may seem like a sweeping generalisation here but of all the gay couples I know (and I lived in Brighton for 16 years, so know a fair few
) not one couple has stayed together longer than ~2 years. Now, I know the same can be said for straight-sex couples, but in my experience there appears to be (fairly significantly) higher levels of promiscuity among homosexual people. To me, that is a concern - any child should have the chance of a stable upbringing, and while it's not guaranteed in any relationship, I just feel it's even less so in a gay one.
All just in my opinion, no stats to prove it!
This may seem like a sweeping generalisation here but of all the gay couples I know (and I lived in Brighton for 16 years, so know a fair few
) not one couple has stayed together longer than ~2 years. Now, I know the same can be said for straight-sex couples, but in my experience there appears to be (fairly significantly) higher levels of promiscuity among homosexual people. To me, that is a concern - any child should have the chance of a stable upbringing, and while it's not guaranteed in any relationship, I just feel it's even less so in a gay one.All just in my opinion, no stats to prove it!
17 August 2005, 10:38 AM
#63
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Next door to the WiFi connection
Posts: 16,293
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its a good point though, not backing it up but you dont exactly see 80year old guys walking down the street hand in hand do you? lol it is a serious point. Although how many gay couples do consider children? maybe the few that do are those in long term relationships. its another side to a debate though.
17 August 2005, 10:41 AM
#64
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 267
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by TelBoy
How many of those couples had children, Lucy? None, right?
17 August 2005, 10:47 AM
#65
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: The land of the pink pig
Posts: 21,623
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think anyone should be denied the opportunity to be a parent, if that's what they want. And an opportunity is all it is. IVF is not an easy solution - it's a very long & emotional process with only a 20% chance of success!
Children are happy as long as they have loving parents, it doesn't matter what sex they are. If people don't think same sex couples should have children, what happens if a 'normal' couple split & one of them discovers they are gay? Should they be refused access to their child?
Having children is not a right, it's a gift, but to point blank refuse someone the chance just because of their sexuality is wrong in my opinion.
Children are happy as long as they have loving parents, it doesn't matter what sex they are. If people don't think same sex couples should have children, what happens if a 'normal' couple split & one of them discovers they are gay? Should they be refused access to their child?
Having children is not a right, it's a gift, but to point blank refuse someone the chance just because of their sexuality is wrong in my opinion.
17 August 2005, 10:48 AM
#66
BANNED
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Jasey@Work
Posts: 2,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by TelBoy
So would you agree to neutering all male/female combos that would seem to you and i as not being suitable for rearing children? And if not, why not?
It would sort out 95% of our problems.
List of Neuter candidates in order of priority.
1. Career Criminals
2. Gays
3. Lesbians
4. People on benefits with more than 2 kids already
5. TelBoy
17 August 2005, 10:52 AM
#68
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Next door to the WiFi connection
Posts: 16,293
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Huxley Chick
Having children is not a right, it's a gift, but to point blank refuse someone the chance just because of their sexuality is wrong in my opinion.
17 August 2005, 10:54 AM
#69
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: The land of the pink pig
Posts: 21,623
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by davegtt
Correct, its not a right so why should a couple who are incapable on concieving because they dont have the correct tool be given that right? You said its a gift, correct, its a gift of nature, do we start cloning humans then? cause thats not a natural process, just like 2 people of the same sex producing a child. thats not a natural process either.
17 August 2005, 10:56 AM
#70
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: God's promised land
Posts: 80,907
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dave, do you think all fathers and all mothers are 100% heterosexual?
What if they're not? What about the x% that's "unnatural" to you? Sweep it under the carpet?
What if they're not? What about the x% that's "unnatural" to you? Sweep it under the carpet?
17 August 2005, 10:56 AM
#71
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Nobbering about...
Posts: 16,067
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some of you are talking about gays as if they're some kind of alien race 
They are no different, they have the same outlook, hopes, ambitions and aspirations in life as anyone else. Some get broody for kids, some don't. Some stay in long term relationships, some don't. Some are promiscuous, some aren't. The only tangible difference is that they don't have a sexual attraction to people of the opposite sex.
They are no different, they have the same outlook, hopes, ambitions and aspirations in life as anyone else. Some get broody for kids, some don't. Some stay in long term relationships, some don't. Some are promiscuous, some aren't. The only tangible difference is that they don't have a sexual attraction to people of the opposite sex.
17 August 2005, 10:57 AM
#72
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Next door to the WiFi connection
Posts: 16,293
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
they have the correct tools, they just maybe dont know how to use them I think in the correct circumstances help could be provided but I honestly think there are too many unloved children in the world already and people should look into adoption a little more, not saying it should be conpulsary but I dont see why the government should fund those who want to take an unnatural route to parenthood....
I think in the correct circumstances help could be provided but I honestly think there are too many unloved children in the world already and people should look into adoption a little more, not saying it should be conpulsary but I dont see why the government should fund those who want to take an unnatural route to parenthood....
Last edited by davegtt; 17 August 2005 at 10:59 AM.
17 August 2005, 10:58 AM
#73
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 9,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Huxley Chick
So where do you stand on 'normal' couples who can't have children naturally?
they suffer an abnormality...in that it is "normal" for them to have kids.
gay people suffer no such "abnormality"......it is normal for them not to have kids.
2 gay people can no more have kids than my goldfish. if they get a child in some way (adoption, inherit, foster, etc) then fine......but to create one between them is not normal......so shouldnt be on the NHS.
17 August 2005, 10:59 AM
#74
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Talk to the hand....
Posts: 13,331
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It seems to me that if you are in a gay relationship it renders you unable to conceive children. It's Darwinian fact and it comes with the territory. (Miss)Using science in this way to 'create' a life for no other reason than to have a lifestyle accessory is just plain wrong.
17 August 2005, 11:01 AM
#76
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: God's promised land
Posts: 80,907
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by unclebuck
It seems to me that if you are in a gay relationship it renders you unable to conceive children. It's Darwinian fact and it comes with the territory. (Miss)Using science in this way to 'create' a life for no other reason than to have a lifestyle accessory is just plain wrong.
So that extends to infertile heterosexual couples too then, presumably?
17 August 2005, 11:01 AM
#78
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 9,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by fast bloke
Apparently you can get 15 quid a **** selling your love juice on the net. I reckon 100k a year is achievable with a bit of effort. (You would need a decent **** mag though)
Hardcore old skool there......even though he's selling it on the net he still goes for the magazine!
17 August 2005, 11:03 AM
#79
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: The land of the pink pig
Posts: 21,623
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who said anything about providing it on the NHS?
You're lucky to get any IVF treatment on the NHS as a heterosexual couple since it IS still a postcode lottery!
You're lucky to get any IVF treatment on the NHS as a heterosexual couple since it IS still a postcode lottery!
17 August 2005, 11:03 AM
#80
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: God's promised land
Posts: 80,907
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by davegtt
what Tiggs said... thats what I was trying to say
No it's not. Tiggs is stating the scientific fact, and that it shouldn't be funded on the NHS. You're going further - you're saying gay couples shouldn't have kids by any means, unless i'm reading it wrong.
17 August 2005, 11:04 AM
#81
BANNED
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Jasey@Work
Posts: 2,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by TelBoy
Too late i'm afraid 
Your perception of the world is very different to mine, Reality (lol, ironically). Are YOU a father?
Your perception of the world is very different to mine, Reality (lol, ironically). Are YOU a father?
17 August 2005, 11:10 AM
#84
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 9,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
to be clear this is what im saying:
Idea 1 -
There are too many people in the world. On top of that it is truley natural that some couples cant have kids - in the same way that gay people are natural (both things - gays and infertility- occour in nature) However, neither are normal (anyone who thinks gay people are "normal" doesnt understand the word.
On this basis IVF shouldnt exist AT ALL.....it is screwing with nature. I see this as very different to altering nature to stop cancer from killing someone.
Idea 2 -
There are plenty of fcukup parents anyway so what difference will a few gays make? Every 3 secs an African kid drops dead so are we really fussing about the right thing? The probability is the kid will get a hard time and the parents will split - so what? lifes tough.
This assumes that the NHS does not pay though.
I can never really decide on idea 1 or 2
Idea 1 -
There are too many people in the world. On top of that it is truley natural that some couples cant have kids - in the same way that gay people are natural (both things - gays and infertility- occour in nature) However, neither are normal (anyone who thinks gay people are "normal" doesnt understand the word.
On this basis IVF shouldnt exist AT ALL.....it is screwing with nature. I see this as very different to altering nature to stop cancer from killing someone.
Idea 2 -
There are plenty of fcukup parents anyway so what difference will a few gays make? Every 3 secs an African kid drops dead so are we really fussing about the right thing? The probability is the kid will get a hard time and the parents will split - so what? lifes tough.
This assumes that the NHS does not pay though.
I can never really decide on idea 1 or 2
17 August 2005, 11:10 AM
#85
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 1999
Posts: 4,518
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So that extends to infertile heterosexual couples too then, presumably
You simply cannot argue both sides. (unless of course you're telboy and a short a discusssion on why white is black will follow)
17 August 2005, 11:14 AM
#88
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Next door to the WiFi connection
Posts: 16,293
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whats this thread about? about gays and children also being provided on the NHS? is it not?
Im basing my debate on I believe its unnatural for gays to have children and therefore shouldnt be allowed IVF treatment, weather it be on the NHS or not. Now read what Tiggs has posted
The key part of his post is "if they get a child in some way (adoption, inherit, foster, etc) then fine......but to create one between them is not normal......so shouldnt be on the NHS" hes agreeing that its unnatural to create a child between 2 gays whether it be NHS supplied or not.... if you read 1 of my previous posts I did mention adoption etc... although I disagree to an extent with it all its a route Id prefer people to take.
Im basing my debate on I believe its unnatural for gays to have children and therefore shouldnt be allowed IVF treatment, weather it be on the NHS or not. Now read what Tiggs has posted
they suffer an abnormality...in that it is "normal" for them to have kids.
gay people suffer no such "abnormality"......it is normal for them not to have kids.
2 gay people can no more have kids than my goldfish. if they get a child in some way (adoption, inherit, foster, etc) then fine......but to create one between them is not normal......so shouldnt be on the NHS.
gay people suffer no such "abnormality"......it is normal for them not to have kids.
2 gay people can no more have kids than my goldfish. if they get a child in some way (adoption, inherit, foster, etc) then fine......but to create one between them is not normal......so shouldnt be on the NHS.
17 August 2005, 11:14 AM
#89
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: God's promised land
Posts: 80,907
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
dsmith you've lost me completely. Substitute "illness" for "condition" and see where you get to. How we ever got to drawing parallels between homosexuality, fertility and "illness" i really have no idea....
17 August 2005, 11:14 AM
#90
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 9,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Huxley Chick
Do you have children, Tiggs?
I have 3...and a few dogs.
If i couldnt have kids i dont really think i would care (hard to say without being in that spot but i felt that way before i had kids and feel it now)
It was a great gift to be able to have them but its like the lottery....would you like to win? Yes- it would be superb......do you deserve to? no.
i disagree with the comment above that its an "illness" to not have kids.....its just unlucky (unless your dick falls of due to some bizaree flesh eating condition......then i'll give you illness credits!)
Last edited by Tiggs; 17 August 2005 at 11:17 AM.