STi wanna Subaru

iTrader: (1)

Fudge cake?

unclebuck

So what happens if they turn out to be rubbish parents? In all too many cases I fear this would be the case.

(not saying that there aren't many, many, rubbish hetro parents around these days of course)

TelBoy

Case dismissed, m'lud

Tiggs

no....my asthma point was that it is normal for all humans to breath - hence asthma/diabetic drugs etc are fine.


gay people are not meant to have kids.


try this:

Woman born with odd hormones so she has no chest develope and grows a beard - ruins her life...can the NHS help? Yes...and i think they should.


Man wants **** and a shave.....should the NHS help...no...should he have them? i dont really care.

davegtt

OK, fine I'll say it, I'm brave enough...lol If its what your looking for, I think people who are born or choose to be gay are not "normal". (Dont ask me what is though) Is that better, its not Natural. I dont have a problem with it though, in fact Im fine with it, I know gay people and theyre nice people (unless theyre some screaming camp wierdo's) each to their own, everyone can do whatever they like but the fact of the matter the way they are is not the natural way of life, the way nature intends for us to live and reproduce. Is that clear? That is a fact. nobody can argue that... (but I guess you will ) I dont see why they should be given natures greatest gift if they dont adear to natures way of life.... Bringing up a child by way of adoption is a route thats probably better suited to these types of couples.

Tiggs

wrong IMO.

Gay is natural but not normal.

Gays arent made in a lab....they occour in nature (and in many animals) so they cant be "not natural"

However, they are 100% "not normal" and if they were we wouldnt be here now (i dont mean we would all be out in TT's i mean humans would die out)

TelBoy

Absolutely. But the CRUX of this debate is giving them the chance in the first place. What *i'm* saying is that there's no reason why homosexual parents shouldn't be able to do just a good a job as heterosexual parents, plainly and simply.

Your fear is again, pure conjecture. There's a lot of it on this thread. I suppose it's only natural be be wary of something you're not familiar with, but boy, if this thread *is* representative of the general feelings against homosexual mothers/fathers, prospective gay parents (and their kids) certainly have an uphill (lol) battle ahead of them...

davegtt

sorry I think a miss use of the word Natural there.... I meant in a Nature sort of sence, the way of life intended for a human is man and woman... man + woman = reproduction...

Reality

He can just wait til he's 45

Agree with the rest of it.

TelBoy - I Have friends that are poofs you know

Huxley Chick

Yes, but who decided that gay people are not meant to have kids?


The same people may later decide that asthmatics are not meant to have kids, or people under 5 foot tall, or anything.

It sounds bizarre now, but in 100 years time it may be the 'norm'

Gays are not a different species, it's only narrow minded individuals who deem them as being 'abnormal'. Not that many years ago is was deemed to be abnormal for a woman to wear trousers - see how things have changed!

STi wanna Subaru

iTrader: (1)

man+woman+woman =

Chip

I think you can safely say that the majority of the older generation (Telboy excepted)would be against this as they/we tend to be more of the traditionalist type and truly believe that this is the best and only way to bring up children.

Contrast that to than the younger generation who have been brought up to believe almost anything goes in this PC world that we live in today.Look at how childrens books have changed these past 20 odd years just to appease the minority groups that seem to have sprung up everywhere.

Mum's and Dads are different in their outlook towards children therefore giving any child a more balanced natural view of things. This has been proven time and time again.


Chip

Reality

They did.

davyboy

Unclebuck,

What about adult males who were fertile but cancer treatment has made them infertile?

Dave

unclebuck

But that's simply your conjecture. I think it has less to do with how good a job they may or may not be able to do and much more to do with the social context of such a set up, and the ramifications for the child involved. I for one wouldn't want to have gay parents!!

Chip

Errrr nature I suppose. ie it's not natural.

Chip

davegtt

Who decided that gay people are not meant to have kids? Nature.... think thats an obvious 1....

Its not people who choose these things, its people who fettle beyond their ways which is wrong. Maybe IVF should never have been created or if it was should never have been made public.... Its wrong full stop. Although its a life line for those who are infertile.

you have to decide whats Normal. Normal is not what me or you choose. i.e. women wearing trousers is right or wrong. Normal is having 2 arms, normal is a man having 1 half a reproduction system. normal is a woman having the other half or a reproduction system. hence put the halfs together and you'll get a child. Put the opposites together and you'll get a bit of fun (if thats what your into ) but no child. thats FACT

unclebuck

Dunno. Not the subject of this thread. IIRC they store a sample or two before treatment begins.

dsmith

You're trolling right ? You dont believe that comparing clothing habits against the biological fundamentals of reproduction is relevant ...do you?

rizla06

What's the chance of both lesbians in a relationship being infertile? Are they implying the one that takes the male role shouldn't carry a child and/or they shouldn't have to **** a bloke for the privilege of having a kid because of their chosen sexuality? If they want a kid that much, one must be able to go and get shagged and fall pregnant. Seems to me they want the easy route, if they do, pay for it and don't sponge off the NHS.

PS I don't agree with it.

unclebuck

Indeed. This is where it all gets muddled up and 'politically correct'. Making comparisons with people with other conditions is a smoke screen for those that can't really justify gay IVF.

Huxley Chick

& what would then happen to the sample?

unclebuck

see my previous reply.

Huxley Chick

Discrimination is discrimination, which ever way you look at it.

If IVF is available, it should be available to everyone

dsmith

It doesnt matter -

Fixing a process that is broken (infertility follwoing cancer) is in a different league to creating something from nothing that would never work "naturally" in a million years (gay couples producing children)

Only on Scoobynet....

TheBigMan

Same sex couples should not be aloud to bring up children. Whether they are female, male or otherwise.

They may be great parents, however the concept is incorrect as homosexuality is not a natural mentality. Children should not be forced into a situation of being bought up by a same sex couple - simple as!!

Using children to try and bolster your cause of "we're normal" is about as selfish as it gets and any respecting homosexual wouldn't attempt to have babies - it's cruel as they WILL have massive negative effects from this.

Just another example of how more and more f$cked up society is becoming.

Chip

Ok guys, why not make a few bob out of it while your at it. Three times a week at £50 a shot. Easy money

www.spermdirect.co.uk/donor-information.htm

Chip

Tiggs

i cant see why people are struggling with natural and normal?????

gay is natural - they occour in nature

gay is not normal....not sure how anyone can argue it is anymore than say albino is normal?

as for asthma/diabetes: they are illnesses not "just the way i am". As an example, i have asthma and im 6ft6. I belive my asthma is an illness taht should be treated on the NHS - if someone said £50k and it will go i would pay in a second - i wish i didnt have it. Is being tall the same? no of course not - even though 6ft6 is not normal its just the way i am- i wouldnt expect NHS treatment to be shorter so i fit in cars!

Now do gay people wish they were straight? would they pay 50k to be "ungayed"?

its very different....gay is natural, abnormal and "just the way they are".......exactlly the same as me being 6ft6

TelBoy

UB, your jusification for NOT allowing gay IVF is because of the little word gay. As long as we're all clear about that then the debate's over - you either believe that is a valid reason or you don't. Dunno if this thread will have altered anybody's views - doubt it, as many people's opinion of homosexuality is deep-rooted and unlikely to alter. New generations, however, may have a more liberal attitude. We'll have to wait and see.

davegtt

Why should it?

Its a FACT that nature didnt intend for a gay couple to have children
Its a FACT that a straight couple who have fertility problems are intended to have children just incapable.....

thats the difference. no Discrimination there at all.

Now I aint arguing that the straight couple should be given treatment. thats a different arguement but as I said maybe IVF should just not be available to anyone to stop these PC ways all together. Saying that it is available so there is an argument somewhere and you can only have an arguement with people opposing someone elses veiws....