View Full Version : Bonkers government?
read yesterday that Gay females are now allowed to use sperm banks to have kids-why?
this will open up a can of worms due to the fact that the "Birth mother" technically will have more rights that the "non-Birth mother" as it will be there child.
I dont think its right as there are Straight couples who have to wait years, spend a fortune on IVF etc who deserve a better treatment than they get (i.e no money in NHS) and now we have the government pandering to the Pc brigade, crazy.The money used on passing this law could have given a chance at IVF for so many childless straight couples.
I am not anti-gay before anyone thinks so I just dont agree with it and think that laws etc are being passed to seem to be PC and equal when its not.
If both of the gay partners get equal rights over the child then how does that effect straight couples, where the courts (rightly in most cases) give majority custody to the mother?
Will the courts bend over backwards to ensure equality in custody battles with same sex couples as opposed to Straight couples?
Lord Flasheart
23-May-08, 18:28
If a Lesbian couple splits up who does the CSA go after ??, the one with the deepest voice ??
This is it guys, the Goverment rubber stamping legislation saying that men are no longer needed in a childs life, unless we are paying money that is.
Sperm banks used to be a way of helping childless couples have a family but no more, I am sure I read somewhere that "donations" are dropping at an alarming rate. And why is that ??, because Labour made men financially responsible for any children fathered through the sperm bank. So you make a *ahem* gesture to help people have a family and get the CSA hounding you. I bet these lesbians are loving it, get a kid and then hit the poor unspecting donor for financial support through the CSA.
This is a ridiculous idea, if you want a baby go out and make it the way mother nature intended ie.. man and women, life is hard enough for kids growing up without making them targets for other kids.
God the rate we are going at the only people without human rights or the least human rights will be man and woman getting married cos we will be in the minority.
Does the child get any say in the fact that they are to be raised in a same sex relationship?
Yes it is a rant but god I am sick of the world we are living in.
im sorry, but i have to disagree, just because you are gay, it does not mean you shouldnt be able to have the same chance to be parents.
and im sure "lesbians" arent going to join the bandwagon just to get money from the CSA.
and arent lesbian couples "childless couples" who need help to have a family??
I'm sick to the back teeth about 'gay rights'. That's the way they were born, nothing that can be done about it and thankfully we live in an age where being gay is becoming more acceptable but I think it's wrong that gay couples are allowed to either adopt or get donations from sperm banks.
The whole point of the human race continuing is through procreation and that can only be done with a male and female.
percy toboggan
23-May-08, 22:25
I can visualise all those Islington dinner parties with new Labour luvvies and various hangers-on. Minority moaners...activists and them with 'agendas' like....
An African asylum seeker no doubt drafted in from the mean streets of Hackney...rescued temporarily ...just to salve conscience...after all the food is good here...but he'll not be stayin' the night...
There will be an effeminate man there of course...possibly two. ideally three for after dinner mince...quite what the African will make of 'em I'm not so sure but the soup was tasty so he's stickin' with it for now......then the lesbian lobbyists drinking generous dollops of chardonnay from bumper sized glasses. Units?Alcohol or family units...who cares? KD Lang tracks playing low from one o' them Bose sound wavey machines discreetly placed in the corner. The hosts...Alastair & Sara or some such dispensing trendy epithets with the mange tout and asparagus tips...chatting about the disposability of Dad's and anyway...who needs 'em...apart from those seated around the table of course..who probably despised theirs...and the way he packed 'em off to boarding school in an effort to transpose tory toffdom upon their shallow little suburban lives.
Makes one feel ones missing out what?
I can visualise all those Islington dinner parties with new Labour luvvies and various hangers-on. Minority moaners...activists and them with 'agendas' like....
An African asylum seeker no doubt drafted in from the mean streets of Hackney...rescued temporarily ...just to salve conscience...after all the food is good here...but he'll not be stayin' the night...
There will be an effeminate man there of course...possibly two. ideally three for after dinner mince...quite what the African will make of 'em I'm not so sure but the soup was tasty so he's stickin' with it for now......then the lesbian lobbyists drinking generous dollops of chardonnay from bumper sized glasses. Units?Alcohol or family units...who cares? KD Lang tracks playing low from one o' them Bose sound wavey machines discreetly placed in the corner. The hosts...Alastair & Sara or some such dispensing trendy epithets with the mange tout and asparagus tips...chatting about the disposability of Dad's and anyway...who needs 'em...apart from those seated around the table of course..who probably despised theirs...and the way he packed 'em off to boarding school in an effort to transpose tory toffdom upon their shallow little suburban lives.
Makes one feel ones missing out what?
Percy, once again you've hit the nail on the head. Said it better than I could. No doubt we'll get pelter's now from the 'gay rights' movement.
It's time I was honest with myself and the world. I dont' want to be a heterosexual,white,working class man anymore. I was born in the wrong body/decade. I've a serious identity crisis.
Oh Lord, why couldn't I have been born a transexual,coloured man that want's a sex change so myself & my 'significant other' can adopt a baby that can be brought up with parent 1 and parent 2 teaching it how bad and confused and wrong straight people are. (The same straight people that allowed the gays to have more rights)
DeHaviLand
23-May-08, 22:54
If a Lesbian couple splits up who does the CSA go after ??, the one with the deepest voice ??
This is it guys, the Goverment rubber stamping legislation saying that men are no longer needed in a childs life, unless we are paying money that is.
Sperm banks used to be a way of helping childless couples have a family but no more, I am sure I read somewhere that "donations" are dropping at an alarming rate. And why is that ??, because Labour made men financially responsible for any children fathered through the sperm bank. So you make a *ahem* gesture to help people have a family and get the CSA hounding you. I bet these lesbians are loving it, get a kid and then hit the poor unspecting donor for financial support through the CSA.
Lol, funniest thing I've read in ages. Wrong end of the stick i'm afraid. The law was changed so that donors who had fathered children would no longer have anonymity. It didnt give them any financial obligations.
If a Lesbian couple splits up who does the CSA go after ??, the one with the deepest voice ??
This is it guys, the Goverment rubber stamping legislation saying that men are no longer needed in a childs life, unless we are paying money that is.
Sperm banks used to be a way of helping childless couples have a family but no more, I am sure I read somewhere that "donations" are dropping at an alarming rate. And why is that ??, because Labour made men financially responsible for any children fathered through the sperm bank. So you make a *ahem* gesture to help people have a family and get the CSA hounding you. I bet these lesbians are loving it, get a kid and then hit the poor unspecting donor for financial support through the CSA.
Imagine making the donor having to pay for 'his' child-and he never even got an evening's fun in making it either:D
percy toboggan
23-May-08, 23:13
It's time I was honest with myself and the world. I dont' want to be a heterosexual,white,working class man anymore. I was born in the wrong body/decade. I've a serious identity crisis.
Oh Lord, why couldn't I have been born a transexual,coloured man that want's a sex change so myself & my 'significant other' can adopt a baby that can be brought up with parent 1 and parent 2 teaching it how bad and confused and wrong straight people are. (The same straight people that allowed the gays to have more rights)
Stick with it joxville...
you'll regret having your tackle trimmed.
Heres my solution to the problem.
Take one male gay couple and one female gay couple.
Gay man no1 dances the light fandango with Female no2.
Gay man no2 dances the light fandango with female no1.
9 Months later voila 2 bambinos.
Now all they do is toss(pardon the pun) a coin to decide which couple get which kid.
2 Years later they all split up, messy court battle, but on the upside Madonna now has 2 more babies for her collection.
My point is the law doesnt seem to take it very seriously, its just a case of "lets have a baby its the latest fashion", straight people can have them why cant we?.
Millionaires can have flash cars, but its not my right to have one, if I want one I have to work darn hard to get one,no-one will give me a ferrari its something I have to accept isnt in my stars,nature never intended me to have one,so I'll make do with what I have-simple.
Lord Flasheart
24-May-08, 08:07
Lol, funniest thing I've read in ages. Wrong end of the stick i'm afraid. The law was changed so that donors who had fathered children would no longer have anonymity. It didnt give them any financial obligations.
And why exactly DID the Goverment do that ??, thats exactly why sperm banks have virtually no donors anymore. Tell that to the guy I know who has been hounded for about 6 months now. He has been told that he is the biological father of a teenage girl and the mother (now divorced) has requested financial assistance. He has been told that if he goes to court to fight the CSA he wont have a leg to stand on as he IS the girls biological father and he made a voluntary "donation".
My axe to grind is this lefty bunch of "right on" muppets that seem to think any diversity is automatically right. If you are white, male and hetero you are treated like the enemy while anyone else has rights on everything. Why should Lesbians have "rights" to something that isnt biologically possible while the same Goverment tells men that have fathered children that we dont automatically have parental rights to our OWN children unless we are married ??, unless of course the mothers says so. Are we seeing the trend here ??, this Goverment has a Minister for Women but where is the Minister for Men ??
The Goverment has just rubber stamped a law stating that Fathers as a role model are not needed in the lives of their children, only our sperm and money are useful apparently.
Im now off to extend that wall .. come the revolution its going to need to be a lot bigger to get everyone up against it.
im sorry, but i have to disagree, just because you are gay, it does not mean you shouldnt be able to have the same chance to be parents.
and im sure "lesbians" arent going to join the bandwagon just to get money from the CSA.
and arent lesbian couples "childless couples" who need help to have a family??
sorry Honey but I found your reply quite funny!!
You disagree & say shouldnt gays have the same rights to be parents?? Yes they should have the same rights so go out & do it naturally like everyone else does. Their childless couples because thats the way they chose to be! it they wanted to be parents they would find a man/woman to do the deed with!
Im not against gays but why should they get special treatment because of the life they choose, a straight couple are told to try the natural way for 2 years before their offered fertility treatment, what are the guidelines for gays??
brokencross
24-May-08, 09:29
and im sure "lesbians" arent going to join the bandwagon just to get money from the CSA.
I beg to differ; this rather unusual case blows your statement out of the water.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2007/dec/04/gayrights.immigrationpolicy
The Bonkers Government are caving in to their own badly thought out equality laws.
It is a constant drip, drip erosion of the traditional family and its structure and all in the name of "equal rights".
Just because a procedure is available should not mean it is accessible to all "on equality grounds".
Call me a bigot, a homophobe or just plain old fashioned but shouldn't traditional family values, morals and the future life of the unborn child etc be the first consideration at all times.
Call me a bigot, a homophobe or just plain old fashioned but shouldn't traditional family values, morals and the future life of the unborn child etc be the first consideration at all times.
That should be the case but since 'New' Labour came to power they want to be seen as 'right on' so to hell with the moral majority. Sod the unborn child's rights.
How much has this Government given in to the gays? Pension rights, civil ceremonies and now having kids-where will it end?
Lord Flasheart
24-May-08, 13:27
I might get flamed for this but I dont really care to be honest. A few posters have posted on the thread and feel compelled to say "Im not anti gay but ..", to me this is symptomatic of the attitude to today in which criticism of anyone who isnt white and heterosexual is somehow seen as wrong. People are naturally on the defensive on certain subjects and they shouldnt have to be.
First I dont really care about peoples lifestyles. If you are a gay man or woman then thats your choice and fair play to you. I have some workmates who are Gay and they are good mates, they also know if they attempt to pat my backside I will give them a physical warning that will sting for a week.
The way I see it is if I want to disapprove of it then as long as I am not insulting or assaulting anyone then thats my buisness, its my opinion and if you dont like it then fine, but its my right to have it. I do find it amusing that the gay lobby are always going about other peoples attitudes but are quite happy to dictate what opinions others should hold. I really disagree with the word Homophobic, The attitude of "If you dont like my lifestyle it must be because youre scared and its YOU that is the problem" makes my blood boil. Personally I am Homonauseous as the thought of two men together makes my guts tumble. And I am the first to admit I am a hypocrite as the thought of two women together makes me feel quite the opposite (and I bet any man who has seen Wild Things wont disagree) but thats just me.
What I cannot abide is the "Thought Police" telling me what to think and how to feel about something. Now we have the Goverment introducing Legislation that gives couples who cant have children biologically more rights than certain Fathers who already have !!, its mad.
Nope .. the wall still isnt big enough Im afraid.
For decades past, were men every really needed in a stable heterosexual relationship apart from earning money to support their family? Men used to be the 'bread winners', women stayed at home and brought up the kids.
I don't think two lesbians getting the right to bear a child is going to destroy the family values of heterosexual couples. Heterosexuals will still meet up, get married and have children in the usual way with the father working to support them and the mother bringing up the children and taking care of the day to day running of the household. In other situations both parents will be working leaving the kids to be brought up by grandparents or other available relatives or if they have the money, maybe using childminders.
Family values are in flux and will continue this way and lesbians are not going to make much difference except when rose-tinted spectacles are used to view a version of 'family values' very few can claim to live by.
just because you are gay what right does that give the goverment to say that you wouldnt make a good mum, how many man/woman couples have kids and end up spilting up everybody deserves the chance to be a parent.
im sorry, but i have to disagree, just because you are gay, it does not mean you shouldnt be able to have the same chance to be parents.
and im sure "lesbians" arent going to join the bandwagon just to get money from the CSA.
and arent lesbian couples "childless couples" who need help to have a family??
I'm sorry to disagree with you. If someone is 'gay' they made a conscious choice to forego the normal act that Nature intended ie no sperm. So, having made that choice (and that is their right to do so) why should they receive any help to bypass Nature's law? Perhaps they should consider hermaphroditic reproduction instead. :eek:
I'm sorry to disagree with you. If someone is 'gay' they made a conscious choice to forego the normal act that Nature intended ie no sperm. So, having made that choice (and that is their right to do so) why should they receive any help to bypass Nature's law? Perhaps they should consider hermaphroditic reproduction instead. :eek:
It is a tricky one to call. A woman may not be attracted to men, yet may still have the natural instinct to bear a child. On balance, I tend to agree with you that it is unnatural to have a potential stranger provide the sperm and to then become pregnant through a soulless, scientific act, rather than from a loving union between partners. It has a Blue Peteresque, "here's one I prepared earlier" feel to it, in my opinion. I do feel however, that Gay people can make as good, if not better, parents than some of the "normal", heterosexual people. How many heterosexual couples have proved to be poor parents? Perhaps adoption should be the option for people unable to bear children of their own? (for whatever reason)
Boozeburglar
24-May-08, 23:48
Personally speaking.
I would rather stumble in on my parents making whoopee as a female couple than just about anything else.
:)
It is a tricky one to call. A woman may not be attracted to men, yet may still have the natural instinct to bear a child. On balance, I tend to agree with you that it is unnatural to have a potential stranger provide the sperm and to then become pregnant through a soulless, scientific act, rather than from a loving union between partners. It has a Blue Peteresque, "here's one I prepared earlier" feel to it, in my opinion. I do feel however, that Gay people can make as good, if not better, parents than some of the "normal", heterosexual people. How many heterosexual couples have proved to be poor parents? Perhaps adoption should be the option for people unable to bear children of their own? (for whatever reason)
This isnt a discussion about how good a parent they will be though, no-one is disputing the fact that any walk of life can be a good parent just the same as they can make a bad parent, were talking about the government funding their desire to be a parent when they have chosen a relationship where they would never be able to have a child naturally.
I agree that everyone has the right to have a chance at motherhood/fatherhood but if they chose a situation where they couldnt have one naturally then they should be paying for it not getting it for free.
percy toboggan
25-May-08, 16:06
Lesbians can make good mothers.
Men can't..primarily because they are not women.
Every child needs a mother....and if at all possible a loving Dad (anyone can be a 'father' - apart from a few unfortunates)
The whole notion of two men adopting a child is frankly bizarre...two women well, maybe...after vetting and approval then I see no reason why they could not be assisted...at a cost of several thousand pounds. If they cannot afford it then surely they could adopt a child. Children are not a right...much less if you're averse to the act of procreation itself.
This isnt a discussion about how good a parent they will be though, no-one is disputing the fact that any walk of life can be a good parent just the same as they can make a bad parent, were talking about the government funding their desire to be a parent when they have chosen a relationship where they would never be able to have a child naturally.
I agree that everyone has the right to have a chance at motherhood/fatherhood but if they chose a situation where they couldnt have one naturally then they should be paying for it not getting it for free.
I think you will find that MANY people are strongly against the notion of gay people as candidates for parenthood. They give several reasons as to why it is not appropriate for them to bring up children. No doubt some people are reluctant to post their views on a forum for fear of the backlash, but there is no doubt that there is a sizeable section of the population who feel that way. I think that this has to be taken into consideration when evaluating the likely responses when asking whether the government should provide financial assistance or not. Some people are simply going to say no, based on nothing other than the belief that "gay parents", or even just "gay" itself, is "wrong"
ps I think we should be doing all we can to encourage replies on the forum, rather than shouting the odds about what the thread is, or is not, about. In my opinion, a thread should always be open for expansion, provided it is not taken totally off topic or hi-jacked.
I would rather stumble in on my parents making whoopee as a female couple than just about anything else.
:)
Not trying to be funny, but that statement needs a bit of clarifying to avoid coming across as some bizarre fetish confession!!
brokencross
25-May-08, 17:48
Broadening the debate slightly; this article skirts around the topic of human/animal embryology, need for a father and the recent abortion debates in Parliament. It is worth a read.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1021559/What-world-like-men.html
It would appear that if you speak out against the science of human-animal hybrids or as the article says :- "ask whether this or that highly dubious meddling with Nature is in the best interests of society, and you are told you are obstructing clear, potential benefits to human health. You are labelled a die-hard who wants children to die of cancer or the elderly to become demented.
If you question the necessity of vivisection or stem cell research, you are made to feel as though you are responsible for the horrible conditions of the human lot."
Also, "In the past few days, Parliament has pooh-poohed the idea that human beings, artificially bred in a laboratory, need fathers or father-substitutes.
The same law-makers, who see nothing wrong with aborting a child aged 24 weeks in the mother's womb, have also joyfully given the go-ahead to research which will involve the creation of human-animal hybrids in laboratories."
Are the Bonkers Government our moral compass or do scientists rule the roost by "promising" to cure all ills, no matter what ethical or moral barriers have to be broken down to achieve this aim. I am no scientist but it goes against my feeling to start mixing and messing animal and human cells even if they will be destoyed within 2 weeks. My fear is that some scientists will want to experiment and research for science's sake, pushing the boundaries and not for the laudable outcome of curing disease.
brokencross
25-May-08, 17:50
.. .. .. .. ..operator error
ps I think we should be doing all we can to encourage replies on the forum, rather than shouting the odds about what the thread is, or is not, about. In my opinion, a thread should always be open for expansion, provided it is not taken totally off topic or hi-jacked.
I do apologise scorrie didnt realise I was shouting the odds!! I didnt remember typing in capitals!
I agree that threads should be open for expansion & also feel that people on here can also be a bit touchy & should chill a bit:eek:
percy toboggan
25-May-08, 21:43
Not trying to be funny, but that statement needs a bit of clarifying to avoid coming across as some bizarre fetish confession!!
That's exactly what it is surely...perhaps an attempt to inject some juvenile humour here.
I didnt remember typing in capitals!
I agree that threads should be open for expansion & also feel that people on here can also be a bit touchy & should chill a bit:eek:
There is a difference between literally and metaphorically "shouting the odds"
By the way, do you agree that there is an anti-gay stance from some people regarding prospective parents? From your earlier post, it seemed that you were saying that everyone acknowledged that gays made good parents.
I'm sick to the back teeth about 'gay rights'. That's the way they were born, nothing that can be done about it and thankfully we live in an age where being gay is becoming more acceptable but I think it's wrong that gay couples are allowed to either adopt or get donations from sperm banks.
The whole point of the human race continuing is through procreation and that can only be done with a male and female.
Procreation yes but almost everyone deserves the chance to be a parent. I do not think that blokes who leave a donation should be hounded by the CSA as thats just ridiculous. The CSA should hound the "actual" parents be they male or female.
In almost every case going PC has been to the detriment of the majority so it should be considered far more carefully when passing laws.
Procreation yes but almost everyone deserves the chance to be a parent. I do not think that blokes who leave a donation should be hounded by the CSA as thats just ridiculous. The CSA should hound the "actual" parents be they male or female.
In almost every case going PC has been to the detriment of the majority so it should be considered far more carefully when passing laws.
You are correct in saying that everyone deserves the chance to be a parent , however, homosexual and lesbian people in choosing to lead a gay lifestyle shouldn't complain when......sorry, I've totally lost interest in this thread.
There is a difference between literally and metaphorically "shouting the odds"
By the way, do you agree that there is an anti-gay stance from some people regarding prospective parents? From your earlier post, it seemed that you were saying that everyone acknowledged that gays made good parents.
Yes i do agree that some people do have a anti-gay stance when it comes to becoming parents.
I certainly wasnt saying that everyone thought that gays make good parents,I said I believed anyone from any walk of life could turn out to be a good parent, Just because someone is gay doesnt suggest that they would be a bad parent either.
im sorry, but i have to disagree, just because you are gay, it does not mean you shouldnt be able to have the same chance to be parents.
and im sure "lesbians" arent going to join the bandwagon just to get money from the CSA.
and arent lesbian couples "childless couples" who need help to have a family??
HOney, thanks for the only bit of sense in this whole thread, though actually I don't think the NHS should be paying for ANY fertility treatments at all, no matter the sexual persuasion of the couple. The NHS has enough to do paying for all the necessary treatments SICK people go to hospital for.
HOney, thanks for the only bit of sense in this whole thread, though actually I don't think the NHS should be paying for ANY fertility treatments at all, no matter the sexual persuasion of the couple. The NHS has enough to do paying for all the necessary treatments SICK people go to hospital for.
I think childlessness when not through choice must be unbearable but I also think that there are numerous children just waiting to be fostered or adopted and I feel this route should be more widely used. I think the expansion of possible parents to gay, lesbian or single etc is a good thing.
I think childlessness when not through choice must be unbearable but I also think that there are numerous children just waiting to be fostered or adopted and I feel this route should be more widely used. I think the expansion of possible parents to gay, lesbian or single etc is a good thing.
McCaughm, thank you for putting my sentiments more moderately. Good post. I don't know from personal experience whether childlessness is more or less unbearable than anything else life throws at you, e.g., cancer, death of a child, etc., and I'll never know, so I shouldn't judge.
Sometimes I think this board is inhabited entirely by people who are bonkers.
Why shouldn't gay people use modern medical science to conceive?
This is a deeply depressing thread.
I am in favor of free speech for everyone but there are some things you need to remember about gay people. Gay people were among the first to be murdered by the Third Reich.
So here's an exercise for your tiny poisoned brains.
For the word gay substitute Jew.
Sometimes I think this board is inhabited entirely by people who are bonkers.
Why shouldn't gay people use modern medical science to conceive?
This is a deeply depressing thread.
I am in favor of free speech for everyone but there are some things you need to remember about gay people. Gay people were among the first to be murdered by the Third Reich.
So here's an exercise for your tiny poisoned brains.
For the word gay substitute Jew.
Feel free not to bother visiting a board inhabited by people like us, who are bonkers and who possess "tiny, poisoned brains"
Big rich with his big brain, the sole sensible voice on the org. Let us rejoice that he brings the only wisdom to the board.
I can't speak for the other "dunces" on the board, but I had actually heard a whisper in the ether about Hitler and his cronies carrying out atrocities on Jews and Gays. Somehow, my tiny brain managed to retain it. I somehow doubt that we are about to tattoo Gays with pink triangles to mark them as unfit for medical help. That would seem to be your implication.
"I'm in favor of free speech for everyone BUT..." says it all o wise one.
Why shouldn't gay people use modern medical science to conceive?.
.
Basically because they have chosen the path that takes them away from what is required to make babies.
Childless hetero couples try but due to misfortune are unable to concieve,THEY are entitled to use science to have children. The PC brigade always tell us "being gay is a choice that people are free to make".
Well they've made their choice they can live in peace with their choice,no problem with that, but every choice has its down side,which in Gay society is no kids.
I beg to differ; this rather unusual case blows your statement out of the water.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2007/dec/04/gayrights.immigrationpolicy
.
and 1 case is every gay couple??
im sorry, but the issue there is about whether sperm donors should have been able to remain anonmous, NOT whether a couple is gay or not.
ANY couple who have fertility treatment can split up, and have a fight over custody. just because somone is gay should not mean they cant be parents
id rather have good gay parents rather than bad straight parents.
and as for the suggestion gay women should just go out and sleep with a man.. would you DARE suggest that to a married woman??
Scorrie it is fine to know that you are aware - in the crumbling regions of your brain - that there was once a Third Reich. But when it comes to asking what it all means I fear you are seriously overtaxing the little grey cells that you need to help you blunder through daily life.
This lack of connection is demonstrated by your signal failure to make the connection between social stigma, racial discrimination and genocide.
So let me remind you that throughout Europe and America there was social discrimination against Jews. This was the soil out of which grew Nazism. Jews and Gays went to the ovens.
In some ways the stigma against Gays has proved even more enduring than that against Jews. What passes for wit and social anaylsis on this board is quite simply pathetic and would constitute hate literature were it not for the moral numness of the participants.
But let me ask:
Are you not ashamed of yourselves?
Is this thread not a form of gay bashing?
Why should gay people be denied the benefit of artificial insemination?
And finally, though I support every form of free speech, why does the Org consistenly allow dimwits to rant on about whatever reactionary subject has caught their fancy?
Surely free speech means the right to speak freely - but does the Org not have the right to deny a platform to this sort of nasty spite?
Scorrie it is fine to know that you are aware - in the crumbling regions of your brain - that there was once a Third Reich. But when it comes to asking what it all means I fear you are seriously overtaxing the little grey cells that you need to help you blunder through daily life.
This lack of connection is demonstrated by your signal failure to make the connection between social stigma, racial discrimination and genocide.
So let me remind you that throughout Europe and America there was social discrimination against Jews. This was the soil out of which grew Nazism. Jews and Gays went to the ovens.
In some ways the stigma against Gays has proved even more enduring than that against Jews. What passes for wit and social anaylsis on this board is quite simply pathetic and would constitute hate literature were it not for the moral numness of the participants.
But let me ask:
Are you not ashamed of yourselves?
Is this thread not a form of gay bashing?
Why should gay people be denied the benefit of artificial insemination?
And finally, though I support every form of free speech, why does the Org consistenly allow dimwits to rant on about whatever reactionary subject has caught their fancy?
Surely free speech means the right to speak freely - but does the Org not have the right to deny a platform to this sort of nasty spite?
Its all very nice to go on about "dimwits" and then mention nasty spite when YOU are attacking people who dont agree with your opinion!
You are perfectly entitled to your opinion as are we all.
This is not "gay bashing" it is merely people expressing their opinions on a subject that obviously they feel very passionate about.
Why always the mention of jews?
The purpose of the thread was to discuss the item in question,not diversify down whichever road that you wish, I would love to discuss judaism as I am well versed on the subject BUT that wasnt the basis of the thread.
"but does the Org not have the right to deny a platform to this sort of nasty spite?"-And your attacking of Scorrie isnt (to use your words)the use of a platform for nasty spite? or am I a dimwit-(Dual Income, Married, With Teens)-source-t'internet.
Its all very nice to go on about "dimwits" and then mention nasty spite when YOU are attacking people who dont agree with your opinion!
You are perfectly entitled to your opinion as are we all.
This is not "gay bashing" it is merely people expressing their opinions on a subject that obviously they feel very passionate about.
Why always the mention of jews?
The purpose of the thread was to discuss the item in question,not diversify down whichever road that you wish, I would love to discuss judaism as I am well versed on the subject BUT that wasnt the basis of the thread.
"but does the Org not have the right to deny a platform to this sort of nasty spite?"-And your attacking of Scorrie isnt (to use your words)the use of a platform for nasty spite? or am I a dimwit-(Dual Income, Married, With Teens)-source-t'internet.What exactly are your reasons for wanting to stop homosexuals from getting the chance to bring up a child?
Hotrod four, what ARE you thinking about? You mete out these amazing judgemental statements like an Old Testament prophet.
You seem to imagine that people can choose their sexuality. This is not the case. You may be able to suppress your sexuality, or sublimate it by joining some religious cult but that is a fatally limited notion of what choice is all about in the 21st century.
Hotrod - or may I simply call you Rod - in today's world there are real choices, life enhancing choices. If you are a responsible, thoghtful gay person than you may decide to come out and live in the open as a gay person.
If you do that and society recognizes gay marriage - as we do in Canada - then why not have a child to complete your union? What possible objections can there be to this?
Rod, you ask why the Jews are always mentioned in this context.
If you have to ask this question, I can only conclude that you have been living in a cave for the last century.
Scorrie it is fine to know that you are aware - in the crumbling regions of your brain - that there was once a Third Reich. But when it comes to asking what it all means I fear you are seriously overtaxing the little grey cells that you need to help you blunder through daily life.
This lack of connection is demonstrated by your signal failure to make the connection between social stigma, racial discrimination and genocide.
So let me remind you that throughout Europe and America there was social discrimination against Jews. This was the soil out of which grew Nazism. Jews and Gays went to the ovens.
In some ways the stigma against Gays has proved even more enduring than that against Jews. What passes for wit and social anaylsis on this board is quite simply pathetic and would constitute hate literature were it not for the moral numness of the participants.
But let me ask:
Are you not ashamed of yourselves?
Is this thread not a form of gay bashing?
Why should gay people be denied the benefit of artificial insemination?
And finally, though I support every form of free speech, why does the Org consistenly allow dimwits to rant on about whatever reactionary subject has caught their fancy?
Surely free speech means the right to speak freely - but does the Org not have the right to deny a platform to this sort of nasty spite?
You know next to nothing about me or my intellectual capabilities. You are running people down because they do not share your opinion. This thread started off as a question on whether the government should fund artificial insemination for gay couples. Simply because some people do not think it is appropriate for the government to do so, has got you calling people gay bashers and comparing them with Nazis. That is sensational crap, and, according to Godwin's Law, it makes you the loser of the argument:-
http://jamesthornton.com/theory/theory?theory_id=13
It matters not about the theory though. Anyone can see that you have descended to childish name-calling and insults. Any credibility has been lost.
My own personal feeling is that we have a health service in this country and there are many problems that it needs to address with a limited budget. I make no apologies for believing that there are higher priorities in this country than Gay couples who require a sperm donor and artificial insemination to provide them with a child. Other people have their very lives at stake and, in my opinion, that is higher priority. You talk about Gay couples completing a Union by having a child but it is simply not the same as a Union between a woman and a man. A woman and a man create a child that is made from themselves, they each play a part in the creation, the child carries their genes. A lesbian couple can only have one partner who plays a part as the sperm is donated by a third party. How do you decide which one gets to bear the child? Is it a case that they have to have two children, so that BOTH can fulfil their "right" to give birth. I have always said that there is no reason why gay people cannot be good and loving parents. What I question is the methodology and whether the tax should be asked to foot the bill. That is reasonable enough in my mind, yet I am labelled a gay basher, and a dim witted one at that.
Let me tell you pal, I do not blunder my way through daily life and my mind is as sharp as a razor. You talk about free speech at the same time as suggesting that the org refuse to allow many of the comments on its forum. Oh aye, free speech for what suits YOU and censorship for that which does not.
I suggest you take a step back and have a good look at yourself. You paint yourself as some kind of superior being and insult the lower ranks who inhabit this forum. Why not spend your time waxing egos with people of your own, lofty, intellectual standing?
Whitewater
27-May-08, 23:51
An interesting thread until the dummies started flying out of the prams, next you will all be standing at 10 paces with your handbags at the ready. All for what? One trying to score points over the other.
The only comment that I can make on this particular subject is the fact that gay people will probably make as good parents as heterosexual couples, and from what we read and hear in the news bulletins every day they will be a damn sight better than many normal couples.
In this country, which is now being run by the PC (Politically Correct) brigade, anything goes. I have mixed feelings about the results of what I see happening in many walks of life, but many of them are far away from the subject matter of this thread so I will leave it alone.
My wife and I were both very good friends of a Gay gentleman, and I use the word 'gentleman' in its true sense. He baby sat for us on many occasions, both my son and daughter adored him. Sadly he passed away a few years ago. I had many conversations with him about his orientation, he didn't hold a beacon up telling the world of his sexuality, and I don't think he would have agreed with the way things have progressed. However, having said all that I know he would have made an excellent parent.
I think this thread began about whether the government should fund lesbians to have IVF treatment. Does it matter? If the government does not fund it they will get it privately. At the end of the day all that matters is the quality of the childs life. I'm sure they will be no worse than many heterosexual couples, and in many cases probably a lot better.
What exactly are your reasons for wanting to stop homosexuals from getting the chance to bring up a child?
Please see page 1 of the thread where I explain :)
Rod, you ask why the Jews are always mentioned in this context.
If you have to ask this question, I can only conclude that you have been living in a cave for the last century.
The reason I ask is what does the religion of judaism have to do with the discussion of the government funding artificial insemination for homosexuals?
And No I havent been in a cave for the last Century as I know only too well about the suffering of the jewish people as my wife is Jewish.
I can only conclude that you are very passionate on the subject of artificail insemination for gays as am I,but personal attacks and trying to rubbish peoples comments rather than provide useful information and discussion,doesnt help your case.
brokencross
28-May-08, 10:25
Sometimes I think this board is inhabited entirely by people who are bonkers.
Why shouldn't gay people use modern medical science to conceive?
This is a deeply depressing thread.
I am in favor of free speech for everyone but there are some things you need to remember about gay people. Gay people were among the first to be murdered by the Third Reich.
So here's an exercise for your tiny poisoned brains.
For the word gay substitute Jew.
This interjection adds nothing constructive to the debate and shows a distinct lack of respect for the views or opinions of others on what is an emotive topic. As far as I can see there has been no call for mass extermination of any sections of the human race.
In rather simplistic, non bonkers and non poisoned mind terms my feelings are sort of based on what comes natural:-
1) Man meets Woman.... Courtship, Fall in Love... Marriage,........... .Make Love, Result Baby
2) Man meets Man,....... Courtship, Fall in Love....Civil Partnership,...Make Love, Result NO Baby
3) Woman meets Woman, Courtship, Fall in Love.. Civil Partnership... Make Love, Result NO Baby
In scenario 1) if the couple are unable to conceive naturally, scientific intervention is justified to achieve the natural outcome.. .. Result Baby.
Why shouldn't gay people use modern medical science to conceive?
In scenarios 2) and 3) to acheive the natural outcome..Result NO Baby.. .. means that no scientific intervention is required so therefore should not be used.
Not anti-gay but more pro-natural outcome.
And before anyone says anything about the "marriage" aspect in my scenarios that is a personal choice as to the ideal situation, but not being married should not exclude long term couples from the scientific process.
Please see page 1 of the thread where I explain :)
read yesterday that Gay females are now allowed to use sperm banks to have kids-why?Whether they recieved ivf or not was always at the discretion of the fertility clinic. The change is in the wording, i.e, the need for a father has been removed and replaced with supportive parent, making it easier for those people to get access to treatment.
this will open up a can of worms due to the fact that the "Birth mother" technically will have more rights that the "non-Birth mother" as it will be there child.They will both have the same rights as heterosexual parents. The need for one partner having to adopt the kid has been removed, i.e, they will both go onto the birth certificate as the legal parents.
I dont think its right as there are Straight couples who have to wait years, spend a fortune on IVF etc who deserve a better treatment than they get (i.e no money in NHS) and now we have the government pandering to the Pc brigade, crazy.The money used on passing this law could have given a chance at IVF for so many childless straight couples.One partner has to have a medical reason why they can't concieve before they qualify for free i.v.f treatment on the n.h.s. I think they are allowed three treatments before they have to start paying for it themselves. What makes you think that a lesbian couple or a single woman would qualify for free treatment, wouldn't they have to be infertile?
I'd think that they would have to pay for treatment privately using their own money. Better to allow them professional treatment rather than have to go to some backstreet clinic is it not?
I am not anti-gay before anyone thinks so I just dont agree with it and think that laws etc are being passed to seem to be PC and equal when its not.It gives the same rights to gay couples as it does to heterosexual couples in this case, is that so bad?
If both of the gay partners get equal rights over the child then how does that effect straight couples, where the courts (rightly in most cases) give majority custody to the mother? Will the courts bend over backwards to ensure equality in custody battles with same sex couples as opposed to Straight couples?
If they ever split up then the courts would decide who gets custody. Maintainance payments would have to be made by one legal parent the same as it is for a heterosexual couple. Quite rightly if both are good parents that the child should stay with the one that gave birth.
Whitewater
28-May-08, 12:50
Tut, tut, your still at it.
Boozeburglar
28-May-08, 13:27
Not anti-gay but more pro-natural outcome.
So I take it you follow this logic in all things; or is it just because you think the argument works here?
Tut, tut, your still at it.
It is a forum is it not?
:)
This is a forum for tripe mongers. Do I really have to go back and show the smears used to attack gay people?
OK. you asked for it!
here are some of the greatest anti-gay hits of this alleged forum.
From Hotrod 4:
"Gay females are now allowed to use sperm banks. Why?"
The answer to this question is why not? (A question nobody on the board has attempted to answer. But wait! Could it be we have a conspiracy on our hands?
Over to you Lord Flasheart:
"If a lesbian couple splits up who does the CSA go ? The one with thedeepest voice?....I bet these lesbians are loving to get a kid and then hit the poor unuspecing donor for financial support."
But back to the issue of getting pregnant in the first place.
Unicorn has it all worked out!
"If you want a baby, go out and make it the way nature intended."
Nature? What a piece of theological bunkum! NB, the implication is that gay sex is somehow unnatural. I guess this insight comes straighht from the Vatican.
Let's have Joyulle amplify this theme.
"I'm sick to the back teeth about gay rights. The whole point of the human race continuing is through procreation and that can only be done with a male and a female."
It is almost with relief (almost!) that one passes to Percy Toboggan, the jokemeister of the forum. I will not quote him but I must say that his name says it all, Toboggan - a swift downward journey and down is where we generally head with Percy.
I could go on but, really, what is this garbage, alleged forum doing on the Caithness. org in the first place? It doesen't even belong on Alabama.org!
Ricco - I am sorry for leaving you out. You seem to have detected something called NATURE'S LAW. What on earth are you talking about???? Please elucidate! (On second thoughts, please don't!)
" If someone is 'gay' they made a conscious choice to forego the normal act that Nature intended ie no sperm. So, having made that choice (and that is their right to do so) why should they receive any help to bypass Nature's law? Perhaps they should consider hermaphroditic reproduction instead."
i would add "scientific intervention" isnt "natural" at all..
so surely in the "nature" arguement, that would rule out ALL infertility treatment.. meaning any couple who cant concieve "naturally" should just be told "tough luck"?
brokencross
28-May-08, 16:53
Not anti-gay but more pro-natural outcome.
So I take it you follow this logic in all things; or is it just because you think the argument work?
Not quite sure what you are getting at with that. Maybe my wording leaves a bit to be desired OR maybe you are waiting to shoot me down in flames about something I have written previously.
However, I do happen to think the argument holds water in this particular case.
"In all things" is a pretty broad spectrum so I would be rather naive to say yes I follow that logic in all things. Medical intervention is an ethical and moral minefield; just because something can be done doesn't mean it has to, or should be done.
Not quite sure what you are getting at with that. Maybe my wording leaves a bit to be desired OR maybe you are waiting to shoot me down in flames about something I have written previously.
However, I do happen to think the argument holds water in this particular case.
"In all things" is a pretty broad spectrum so I would be rather naive to say yes I follow that logic in all things. Medical intervention is an ethical and moral minefield; just because something can be done doesn't mean it has to, or should be done.
For heaven's sake man, we're talking about a simple medical procedure that will allow women - regardless of their sexual orientation to have a shot at conception. Where is the ethical or moral minefield?
brokencross
28-May-08, 17:21
i would add "scientific intervention" isnt "natural" at all..
so surely in the "nature" arguement, that would rule out ALL infertility treatment.. meaning any couple who cant concieve "naturally" should just be told "tough luck"?
I can't disagree with you "scientific intervention" is not "natural".
The "natural" aspect I was trying to express, is the natural progression "Man..Woman..Relationship..Love..Makes Baby Outcome" which was my justification for the scientific intervention being acceptable in that case and not in the other scenarios, where a baby would not be the outcome!!
As I just said in my previous post maybe my choice of words may leave a bit to be desired; I was trying to be succinct and that probably caused the meaning of my argument to be lost.
I get the distinct feeling my "nature" argument has not convinced you as the rights or wrongs regarding who should get fertility treatment.
here are some of the greatest anti-gay hits of this alleged forum.
From Hotrod 4:
"Gay females are now allowed to use sperm banks. Why?"
And that comment isnt anti-gay it merely asks the question,which you elaborate hasnt been answered, but I notice YOU havent come up with a valid reason rather than bertaing other peoples posts!!!!.
No doubt you will be busy copying and pasting all night without actually answering any of your own questions!!
And finally, Have a nice day :)
I am going to be totally up front here and tell you all that I have reported rich to the moderators for his conduct on this thread. I was personally warned for a lot less than the rude and demeaning nonsense rich has contributed to this thread and it is high time some consistency was applied across the board. It is Caithness.org NOT rich.org, the tail should not be allowed to wag the dog.
Margaret M.
29-May-08, 02:41
I am going to be totally up front here and tell you all that I have reported rich to the moderators for his conduct on this thread.
Rich obviously has very strong feelings on this subject but his display of intolerance is not the most effective way to convince others that they are being intolerant.
I can't disagree with you "scientific intervention" is not "natural".
The "natural" aspect I was trying to express, is the natural progression "Man..Woman..Relationship..Love..Makes Baby Outcome" which was my justification for the scientific intervention being acceptable in that case and not in the other scenarios, where a baby would not be the outcome!!
As I just said in my previous post maybe my choice of words may leave a bit to be desired; I was trying to be succinct and that probably caused the meaning of my argument to be lost.
I get the distinct feeling my "nature" argument has not convinced you as the rights or wrongs regarding who should get fertility treatment.
it wasnt just yourself that that was aimed at Brokencross, there are a few "nature" arguements on here.
but no, your "nature" arguement has not swayed me, just as i dont expect to sway you.
As for Rich? i dont hink his manner has been as bad on this thread as some others i have seen on here in the past, hes obviously just very passionate about what he beleives, as are others..
brokencross
29-May-08, 09:23
But let me ask:
Are you not ashamed of yourselves?
Is this thread not a form of gay bashing?
Why should gay people be denied the benefit of artificial insemination?
And finally, though I support every form of free speech, why does the Org consistenly allow dimwits to rant on about whatever reactionary subject has caught their fancy?
Surely free speech means the right to speak freely - but does the Org not have the right to deny a platform to this sort of nasty spite?
Question 1) I am not ashamed of having a strong reasoned opinion
Question 2) No it is not a form of Gay bashing. It is people voicing concerns about who should or shouldn't be allowed artificial insemination in relation to new legislation.
Question 3) I refer you to page 3 post 51 as to my reasons which you seem to have ignored.
Question 4) Having read all the posts again the only person who appears to be "ranting" is yourself.
Your closing statement/question smacks of a type of selective censorship.
If the posters were to incite hatred or violence on the Org, it would be fully justified in "denying the platform" but there is no justification because one Orger does not agree with the content of the thread.
brokencross
29-May-08, 09:33
it wasnt just yourself that that was aimed at Brokencross, there are a few "nature" arguements on here.
but no, your "nature" arguement has not swayed me, just as i dont expect to sway you.
A simple case of we agree to disagree.
As for Rich? i dont hink his manner has been as bad on this thread as some others i have seen on here in the past, hes obviously just very passionate about what he beleives, as are others..
As you say he feels strongly about the topic, but the nature of his posts do nothing at all to advance his case. Being downright rude is no way to win friends or change people's minds. Maybe he was having a bad day. (No.. .. just looked, the posts were on more than one day)
I agree with brokencross, Rich may have strong feelings on this subject but that is no excuse for verbally attacking others just because they dont share his views.
Rich believes that gay sex is natural but its not natures natural way of conception is it, , I didnt read any anti-gay rants going off thread only orgers agreeing or disagreeing as to weather the government should fund artifical insemination for gay people & thats what this thread is about.
here are some of the greatest anti-gay hits of this alleged forum.
From Hotrod 4:
"Gay females are now allowed to use sperm banks. Why?"
The answer to this question is why not? (A question nobody on the board has attempted to answer. But wait! Could it be we have a conspiracy on our hands?
Over to you Lord Flasheart:
"If a lesbian couple splits up who does the CSA go ? The one with thedeepest voice?....I bet these lesbians are loving to get a kid and then hit the poor unuspecing donor for financial support."
But back to the issue of getting pregnant in the first place.
Unicorn has it all worked out!
"If you want a baby, go out and make it the way nature intended."
Nature? What a piece of theological bunkum! NB, the implication is that gay sex is somehow unnatural. I guess this insight comes straighht from the Vatican.
Let's have Joyulle amplify this theme.
"I'm sick to the back teeth about gay rights. The whole point of the human race continuing is through procreation and that can only be done with a male and a female."
It is almost with relief (almost!) that one passes to Percy Toboggan, the jokemeister of the forum. I will not quote him but I must say that his name says it all, Toboggan - a swift downward journey and down is where we generally head with Percy.
I could go on but, really, what is this garbage, alleged forum doing on the Caithness. org in the first place? It doesen't even belong on Alabama.org!
Point 1. If you're going to quote me at least get my name right.
Point 2. I'm not anti-gay, I have 2 nieces,(they are cousins), that are lesbian and I have been to both of their civil ceremonies. If I was anti-gay I wouldn't have attended either ceremomy.
Point 3. This is an open forum and whether you agree with someone or not, they are still entitled to an opinion.
Point 4. From what I've read there seems to be a very strong anger underlying your post's because not everyone share's your viewpoint. Who appointed you the voice of reason? Get over yourself dude.
As you say he feels strongly about the topic, but the nature of his posts do nothing at all to advance his case. Being downright rude is no way to win friends or change people's minds. Maybe he was having a bad day. (No.. .. just looked, the posts were on more than one day)
no,.i didnt condone the way in which he aired his views, im just saying i have seen worse on the org in the past, and just felt a bit sorry for him for being reported. I think we all have debates we can get over involved with, this seems to be one for him.
*and i also agree with him, just maybe not as angrily, that id see negative views on the gay community as "anti-gay", and i have personally been appalled by a lot of comments id say fell under this catagory on a few threads in here recently.
of course, im not saying others are worng, i never would, but i cant help how i feel about things, and nor can others..
I agree with brokencross, Rich may have strong feelings on this subject but that is no excuse for verbally attacking others just because they dont share his views.
Rich believes that gay sex is natural but its not natures natural way of conception is it, , I didnt read any anti-gay rants going off thread only orgers agreeing or disagreeing as to weather the government should fund artifical insemination for gay people & thats what this thread is about.The government are not going to fund ivf for lesbian couples, they will still have to pay for it, ivf is only free for couples that have a medical reason not to be able to conceive naturally. The ruling just means that they will have easier access to treatment in professional clinics. There was never any law banning lesbians from using sperm donors.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article4025532.ece
not really down to our government, but it will be our government providing the care for these poor girls..... totally disgusting..
http://www.hrea.org/index.php?base_id=158
the right to a family.... all human beings have a right to a family, but also has the RESPONSIBILITY to the family, not the government. What difference does it make who raises the child as long as the child is happy ?? The arguments go on and on, too old, too young, too gay, wrong religion, wrong colour, wrong sex,
i have friends who were raised by just their father, my father was raised by his mother and his aunt, is this wrong??? family is family, if people want to use IVF to achieve this, who is anyone to judge as long as the children are well cared for, it is instances like above that i personally find distressing. That is when the government needs to draw the line. If they are citizins of this country then they should be prosecuted. As i believe those two girls have the human right to parental care.
i saw that case on GMTV this morning, absolutley shocking. I was desperate for a baby girl when i was pregnant with my 2nd son, but the second my son was born, that went away.
The government are not going to fund ivf for lesbian couples, they will still have to pay for it, ivf is only free for couples that have a medical reason not to be able to conceive naturally. The ruling just means that they will have easier access to treatment in professional clinics. There was never any law banning lesbians from using sperm donors.
Well thats something , but will gay couples take priority over couples that have a child from a previous relationship & therefore dont qualify for free treatment.Its a very difficult thing for the government to work out fairly & how many sperm donors will stop donating because of these new laws.
Certain posters have awarded themselves carte blanche to insult an entire, vulnerable minority in our society.
The feeling seems to be that as long as the atmosphere of the forum remains cosy then it is fine to go on a homophobic rant.
The reason I have taken several, well-aimed swipes at these posters is to let them feel what it is like to be on the receiving end.
But they are strangers to logic, ignorant of science, and - worst of all - unable for a second to place themselves in somebody else's shoes.
Just because someone doesnt agree with someone elses sexuality doesnt make them "anti-gay" in the same way if I dont like a persons opinion and they just so happen to be gay and black and female-does that make me a homophobe?, Racist?, chauvinist? or all three?
The answer-Neither!
Just because I dont agree with something doesnt mean I am "anti" them personally or whatever they attach themselves to.
If thats the case then if i dont agree with say, Percy for example ,on something does that make me anti-english?-no it means I dont agree end of story.
The way the world is just now with the PC brigade its so easy to blame fall outs etc on Race, gender, sexuality etc.
Whatever happened to the good old days when you agreed to disagree? and werent afraid of upsetting a whole religion,race etc.
The worlds gone mad or at least some of them in it have!!!!.
Just because someone doesnt agree with someone elses sexuality doesnt make them "anti-gay" in the same way if I dont like a persons opinion and they just so happen to be gay and black and female-does that make me a homophobe?, Racist?, chauvinist? or all three?
The answer-Neither!If you don't agree with someones homosexuality then of course you are anti gay and You would have to have an irrational fear or dislike of homosexuals to be a homophobe, vastly different from just being anti something.
Just because I dont agree with something doesnt mean I am "anti" them personally or whatever they attach themselves to.
If thats the case then if i dont agree with say, Percy for example ,on something does that make me anti-english?-no it means I dont agree end of story.In the context you are using there is no way you can compare nationality to sexual preference.
The way the world is just now with the PC brigade its so easy to blame fall outs etc on Race, gender, sexuality etc.
Whatever happened to the good old days when you agreed to disagree? and werent afraid of upsetting a whole religion,race etc.
The worlds gone mad or at least some of them in it have!!!!.This thread is about sexuality. You believe that lesbians should have no right to have children. You are a dinosaur living in a world of change, clinging on for dear life as society evolves around you.
Folks,
As a gay man I have to thank many of you for ensuring that you limit my ability to live and contribute in this society of ours.
How I have laughed at the posts of Lord Flasheart (“If a Lesbian couple splits up who does the CSA go after ??, the one with the deepest voice ??”), Percy Toboggan (“effeminate man there of course...possibly two. ideally three for after dinner mince”) of course these types of comments are not gay-bashing they are simply light hearted humour. Probably Lord Flasheart and Percy are now going to tell us that their best friends are gay and that their gay friends agree with everything that they have written. Ever.
But maybe for an important topic like this a serious debate would be more appropriate. Maybe Percy and Lord Whatever should start a joke thread where they can exercise their “wit” and massage each others egos. Just a suggestion in light hearted humour.
Of course I am joining the campaign that Lord Flasheart, Ricco and Brockencross have started. I too believe that any form of medical intervention in cases of cancer, accident etc is wrong. As Lord Flasheart put it “Why should Lesbians have "rights" to something that isnt biologically possible” or Ricco “So, having made that choice (and that is their right to do so) why should they receive any help to bypass Nature's law?” and Brockencross “NO Baby.. .. means that no scientific intervention is required so therefore should not be used”. We shouldn’t be using non-biologically possible/bypassing natures law/scientific intervention is required so should not be used to treat anyone for anything. Where do I sign up?
Mind you I might not get round to signing the petition since I am to busy teaching my nieces and nephews “how bad and confused and wrong straight people are” as Joxville would put it.
However I have had time to ponder over Unicorn’s posting along the lines of “Does the child get any say in the fact that they are to be raised in a same sex relationship?”. No it doesn’t is my conclusion which also lead me to thinking that perhaps we should vet everyone that has a child…..I am sure the good people of this forum would be good vetters. Afterall the child of a pop star, criminal, policeman, religious sect follower, drug-user (illegal or legal drugs) don’t get any say in how they are raised up and their might be some risk of them getting teased at school (personally I had a fleeting thought that maybe we should focus on the bullying???).
But then as some have pointed out my opinion shouldn’t be listened to, me being one of “the” gays. I have too many rights already as Joxville pointed out (“How much has this Government given in to the gays? Pension rights, civil ceremonies and now having kids-where will it end?”). It is wrong that my partner of decades should get my pension when I die or tax relief on our house, I should be refused services and good from shops because of my sexuality and I should have to be subjected to an automatic HIV test when I go for a mortgage just because of who I am.
Anyway all I need to do is find myself a nice woman and it will all be right again as Brie suggested (“they would find a man/woman to do the deed with!”).
Please don’t think of me as gay-bashing or homophobic just because of what I have said. Even if you are also gay and what I have written above make you feel angry/sad/depressed then tough – its much worse for the straight, white men out there (apparently).
This thread seems to have offended a number of people, broken a few handbag straps and led to more than the usual level of hissy fits for Caithness. Is it going anywhere ?
The subject matter seems to bring out some pretty entrenched views which are in absolute disagreement.
Personally I can't make my mind up about the matter of the validity of medical intervention at all in this grossly overpopulated world regardless of sexuality issues.
Publicly airing bad temper and bigotry (even when you don't realise you're a bigot, which is the normal state of self-asessment for bigots) isn't going to change anyone's mind. Nor is calling anyone homophobic, or coming out and saying 'you're all wrong because I'm an expert'.
To be honest my opinion is that the whole debate is really rather pointless and was guaranteed to offend somebody sooner or later but, hey knock yourselves out.
EMB 123 thank you for the nihilist contribution.
Should I ever I run you over with my trusty bicycle I will respect your philosophical doubts about world over-population and leave you in the ditch....
If you don't agree with someones homosexuality then of course you are anti gay and You would have to have an irrational fear or dislike of homosexuals to be a homophobe, vastly different from just being anti something.
In the context you are using there is no way you can compare nationality to sexual preference.
This thread is about sexuality. You believe that lesbians should have no right to have children. You are a dinosaur living in a world of change, clinging on for dear life as society evolves around you.
I have noticed TBh that you seem to love pasting peoples qoutes and then placing your comment.
Why not write a post yourself rather than try to pick on peoples comments?
if you have an opinion(other than just to disagree)why not post it so we can use some of your qoutes in our next post and gain some of your wonderess knowledge ;)
Folks,
As a gay man I have to thank many of you for ensuring that you limit my ability to live and contribute in this society of ours.
[F]
NO one is trying to limit your ability to live.
As a "gay"(your words) you have made a distinct lifestyle choice and fair play to you.
What I feel alot of people are against isnt anyone who is gay,Its the way society seems to bend over backwards to try and keep groups happy.
Nowadays if you are a white local straight person you have to be very vigilant in what you say to people or express your feelings as it can easily be turned around to be anti-something or other.
For example Male no1 doesnt like male no2.
Male no1 and male no2 are both straight theres nothing bigoted they just dont like each other.
But if Male no2 is gay, society would have you believe that male no1 is a homphobe and everyone would be up in arms why?
Society seems to ponder to minorities and are to quick to put everything down to race.colour,sexuality etc.
If a gay person doesnt like straight people what does that make them?
Is there even a "word" for it.
It seems nowadays "gay" is the new "black".
As a straight,British,White,Protestant I understand I have no rights and leave myself open to being given a lovely "anti" title.
Folks,
As a gay man I have to thank many of you for ensuring that you limit my ability to live and contribute in this society of ours.
How I have laughed at the posts of Lord Flasheart (“If a Lesbian couple splits up who does the CSA go after ??, the one with the deepest voice ??”), Percy Toboggan (“effeminate man there of course...possibly two. ideally three for after dinner mince”) of course these types of comments are not gay-bashing they are simply light hearted humour. Probably Lord Flasheart and Percy are now going to tell us that their best friends are gay and that their gay friends agree with everything that they have written. Ever.
But maybe for an important topic like this a serious debate would be more appropriate. Maybe Percy and Lord Whatever should start a joke thread where they can exercise their “wit” and massage each others egos. Just a suggestion in light hearted humour.
Of course I am joining the campaign that Lord Flasheart, Ricco and Brockencross have started. I too believe that any form of medical intervention in cases of cancer, accident etc is wrong. As Lord Flasheart put it “Why should Lesbians have "rights" to something that isnt biologically possible” or Ricco “So, having made that choice (and that is their right to do so) why should they receive any help to bypass Nature's law?” and Brockencross “NO Baby.. .. means that no scientific intervention is required so therefore should not be used”. We shouldn’t be using non-biologically possible/bypassing natures law/scientific intervention is required so should not be used to treat anyone for anything. Where do I sign up?
Mind you I might not get round to signing the petition since I am to busy teaching my nieces and nephews “how bad and confused and wrong straight people are” as Joxville would put it.
However I have had time to ponder over Unicorn’s posting along the lines of “Does the child get any say in the fact that they are to be raised in a same sex relationship?”. No it doesn’t is my conclusion which also lead me to thinking that perhaps we should vet everyone that has a child…..I am sure the good people of this forum would be good vetters. Afterall the child of a pop star, criminal, policeman, religious sect follower, drug-user (illegal or legal drugs) don’t get any say in how they are raised up and their might be some risk of them getting teased at school (personally I had a fleeting thought that maybe we should focus on the bullying???).
But then as some have pointed out my opinion shouldn’t be listened to, me being one of “the” gays. I have too many rights already as Joxville pointed out (“How much has this Government given in to the gays? Pension rights, civil ceremonies and now having kids-where will it end?”). It is wrong that my partner of decades should get my pension when I die or tax relief on our house, I should be refused services and good from shops because of my sexuality and I should have to be subjected to an automatic HIV test when I go for a mortgage just because of who I am.
Anyway all I need to do is find myself a nice woman and it will all be right again as Brie suggested (“they would find a man/woman to do the deed with!”).
Please don’t think of me as gay-bashing or homophobic just because of what I have said. Even if you are also gay and what I have written above make you feel angry/sad/depressed then tough – its much worse for the straight, white men out there (apparently).
Well said Benji; we have had "discussions" along these lines before although not beginning with the same subject. Many people are frightened of homosexuals and lesbians in the same way they are frightened of the subject of sex as that is what a lot of this comes down to. Nothing to do with the individuals they are referring to; just a fear of what goes on in the bedroom.
Well, I would like to enlighten them that there are many things go on in heterosexual bedrooms which would turn the stomachs of some people, gay or straight. Straight or gay, there are perverts of every orientation; who would like to define pervert? (I apologise if my mention of bedroom "things" offend anyone but admin are free to remove my words if they wish).
Every human being has rights, regardless of sexual orientation. Every child deserves a caring parent(s) but sad to say, there are far too many who don't; again regardless of whether the carers are straight or not.
Some posters speak of people "choosing" to be gay; it is not a choice; it is a truth at birth just as being straight is. There are very many people who will never admit they are gay for fear of the very reactions shown on this thread. Not everyone is strong enough to face the ugliness of revulsion shown to homosexuals.
As to the subject at the beginning of this thread, the government are trying to deal with it; not an easy task along with many other "sensitive" subjects. I long for the day that children are born to caring parents of any sex and are guaranteed a happy childhood and a good upbringing to help them be understanding and compassionate people.
Somehow I don't think I will ever see that day along with many other sad anomalies of mankind.
I have noticed TBh that you seem to love pasting peoples qoutes and then placing your comment.
Why not write a post yourself rather than try to pick on peoples comments?
if you have an opinion(other than just to disagree)why not post it so we can use some of your qoutes in our next post and gain some of your wonderess knowledge ;)What exactly are you on about? I have quoted you so that I could answer your post. Most people, if they wish to answer someones post, quote them in their reply, that is the way a forum works. Not too hard a concept to understand is it? Oops did I just quote you again, that must be against forum etiquette. Why exactly have you quoted benji, it's not right that?[lol]
Here's a post i wrote in answer to your thread starter. I have removed the post of yours that I quoted, I don't want to upset you.
Whether they recieved ivf or not was always at the discretion of the fertility clinic. The change is in the wording, i.e, the need for a father has been removed and replaced with supportive parent, making it easier for those people to get access to treatment.
They will both have the same rights as heterosexual parents. The need for one partner having to adopt the kid has been removed, i.e, they will both go onto the birth certificate as the legal parents.
One partner has to have a medical reason why they can't concieve before they qualify for free i.v.f treatment on the n.h.s. I think they are allowed three treatments before they have to start paying for it themselves. What makes you think that a lesbian couple or a single woman would qualify for free treatment, wouldn't they have to be infertile?
I'd think that they would have to pay for treatment privately using their own money. Better to allow them professional treatment rather than have to go to some backstreet clinic is it not?
It gives the same rights to gay couples as it does to heterosexual couples in this case, is that so bad?
If they ever split up then the courts would decide who gets custody. Maintainance payments would have to be made by one legal parent the same as it is for a heterosexual couple. Quite rightly if both are good parents that the child should stay with the one that gave birth.Maybe before you start a thread with a knee-jerk reaction to something you didn't know the full facts about you should at least do a wee bit of research on the matter at hand before you jump in all guns blazing at the thought of all those lesbians getting free fertility treatment at the tax payers expense which if you bothered to look a bit deeper, you would understand that wasn't the case at all.
I don't want to upset you.Maybe before you start a thread with a knee-jerk reaction to something you didn't know the full facts about you should at least do a wee bit of research on the matter at hand before you jump in all guns blazing at the thought of all those lesbians getting free fertility treatment at the tax payers expense which if you bothered to look a bit deeper, you would understand that wasn't the case at all.
Many thanks for the qoute, I now beg before your higher intelligence and humbly apologise for having an opinion, In future I shalll ask for your advice before I use my own mind. ;)
I don't want to upset you.Maybe before you start a thread with a knee-jerk reaction to something you didn't know the full facts about you should at least do a wee bit of research on the matter at hand before you jump in all guns blazing at the thought of all those lesbians getting free fertility treatment at the tax payers expense which if you bothered to look a bit deeper, you would understand that wasn't the case at all.
Many thanks for the qoute, I now beg before your higher intelligence and humbly apologise for having an opinion, In future I shalll ask for your advice before I use my own mind. ;)
I didnt understand how forums work now that you so nicely have pointed out my shortcomings I know for future reference and feel the world is now a better place.
Many thanks for the qoute, I now beg before your higher intelligence and humbly apologise for having an opinion, In future I shalll ask for your advice before I use my own mind. ;)Don't worry hotrod4, just stick to facts before you post and you'll do alright and it will save on having to wash that dummy every time you spit it out.
NO one is trying to limit your ability to live.
As a "gay"(your words) you have made a distinct lifestyle choice and fair play to you.
What I feel alot of people are against isnt anyone who is gay,Its the way society seems to bend over backwards to try and keep groups happy.
Nowadays if you are a white local straight person you have to be very vigilant in what you say to people or express your feelings as it can easily be turned around to be anti-something or other.
For example Male no1 doesnt like male no2.
Male no1 and male no2 are both straight theres nothing bigoted they just dont like each other.
But if Male no2 is gay, society would have you believe that male no1 is a homphobe and everyone would be up in arms why?
Society seems to ponder to minorities and are to quick to put everything down to race.colour,sexuality etc.
If a gay person doesnt like straight people what does that make them?
Is there even a "word" for it.
It seems nowadays "gay" is the new "black".
As a straight,British,White,Protestant I understand I have no rights and leave myself open to being given a lovely "anti" title.
Thanks for the reply. But let me clarify something - I did not choose to be gay/homosexual - I am gay/homosexual. It is no different to you being "straight" - did you choose to fall in love with people of the opposite sex?
Other posts in this forum have looked to limit my ability to live - see Joxvilles posting (number 16).
Why shouldn't people be keen to make other groups happy? Should happiness be limited to "straight, british, White Protestants"" only? Why should you have a monoploy on being happy? Should I be miserable?
You mention that being "gay" is the new "black"....I assume you referring to the black rights movement (eg USA in the 1960's) and the campaign to change peoples attitudes to what was (and to some extends still is) a wrong treatment of a section of society.
You seem to think that there is some secret plan to put down "straight, british, White Protestants". Far from it, many people simply want to be treated the same way as "straight, british, White Protestants", not any better or any worse. We shouls all have the same rights. Nothing more, nothing less.
I agree with you you should be very vigilent about what you say. Personaly I think it is a good thing. It shows awareness and respect for others. Free speech is a good thing but with it come responsibility to use it in the correct way.
Everyone is entitled to some happiness in their life, be happy about that.
Don't worry hotrod4, just stick to facts before you post and you'll do alright and it will save on having to wash that dummy every time you spit it out.
What dummy?
The only thing that has came out of my mouth is common sense!!!
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.