Mom and Mom and their family
13 July 2006, 01:21 PM
#1
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 2,490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mom and Mom and their family
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...267632,00.html
I'm sorry but the world is crackers.What a cracking life the children of the weird family of the future will have.
If an incredibly politically incorrect politician comes to light,they will get my vote.Guaranteed.
I'm sorry but the world is crackers.What a cracking life the children of the weird family of the future will have.
If an incredibly politically incorrect politician comes to light,they will get my vote.Guaranteed.
13 July 2006, 01:33 PM
#3
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London Town
Posts: 983
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by lozgti
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...267632,00.html
I'm sorry but the world is crackers.What a cracking life the children of the weird family of the future will have.
If an incredibly politically incorrect politician comes to light,they will get my vote.Guaranteed.
I'm sorry but the world is crackers.What a cracking life the children of the weird family of the future will have.
If an incredibly politically incorrect politician comes to light,they will get my vote.Guaranteed.
13 July 2006, 01:37 PM
#4
Scooby Regular
tbh, although i've not got anything against gays or lesbians, how can it promote natural reletionships in a child? to be living in a family where both parents are same sex?
13 July 2006, 01:42 PM
#5
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: somewhere big, expensive and exclusive
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
“What’s important is looking at the family environment. There’s less of a need for the reference to the father in that circumstance. That’s not to say that fathers are not important. What’s important is that the children are going to be, as far as we know, part of a loving home.”
Loz, what IS the point of discussing this with you? We have a very similar recent thread and STILL you bang out the same old prejudices. Are you going to disregard every post that disagrees with your view on this thread in the same way? Can anyone ever say anything to widen your horizons on this sort of topic? I don't think so, personally.
13 July 2006, 01:50 PM
#7
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by Ted Maul
don't be sorry, you and the people who think like you are dying out.
Dave
Trending Topics
13 July 2006, 01:50 PM
#8
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: North London
Posts: 1,368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by lozgti
If an incredibly politically incorrect politician comes to light,they will get my vote.Guaranteed.
. . Same sex parents are considered a family???
. . .Oooooooooooooooooooooooooooookaaaaay!
13 July 2006, 01:53 PM
#9
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London Town
Posts: 983
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by kingofturds
If you choose to enter a relationship where it is impossible to procreate then why should they ecpect to have children .What happens when a gay relationship ends? does the other mum pay mantinence? 
13 July 2006, 01:57 PM
#10
We had a kid at school who,s Mum had run off with another woman and he got ribbed to **** every day about it and he has turned out a right **** up.
At the end of the day kids can/will be cruel.
These fcoking pc ***** should put whats best for the children before the whim of these lesbians deciding that it is "their right" to have a baby
At the end of the day kids can/will be cruel.
These fcoking pc ***** should put whats best for the children before the whim of these lesbians deciding that it is "their right" to have a baby
13 July 2006, 01:58 PM
#12
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: somewhere big, expensive and exclusive
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For the love of God. Dave, read this slowly. It has nothing to do with political correctness. It has to do with being able to recognise that parents of the same sex can bring up children successfully. Nobody is saying that ALL families should be like that, nobody is saying that the "normal" family unit isn't probably a better environment, but what we ARE saying is that it doesn't therefore mean that there cannot be ANY alternative to it.
I'm sure we'll get all the usual questions regarding bullying trotted out like we usually do, about why gays mustn't have the opportunity to have kids (I especially like that one), kids "forced" to be lesbians/gays yada yada, but as society begins to realise that kids CAN be brought up successfully in this way, hopefully we'll see a reduction in what I see as the irrational opposition to it. And that does NOT mean I would prefer to see kids brought up in same sex families, just that it is a workable option.
I'm sure we'll get all the usual questions regarding bullying trotted out like we usually do, about why gays mustn't have the opportunity to have kids (I especially like that one), kids "forced" to be lesbians/gays yada yada, but as society begins to realise that kids CAN be brought up successfully in this way, hopefully we'll see a reduction in what I see as the irrational opposition to it. And that does NOT mean I would prefer to see kids brought up in same sex families, just that it is a workable option.
13 July 2006, 02:00 PM
#13
Originally Posted by Ted Maul
If a man knows that a woman is infertile than should that man not go ahead. Are you implying that the infertile woman and her choice of man should not expect to get ivf help to have a family?
13 July 2006, 02:08 PM
#16
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: same time, different place
Posts: 11,313
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
2 Posts
Judith: I do feel Reg, that any anti-imperialistic group like ours must reflect such a divergence of interest within its powerbase.
Reg: Agreed. Rogers?
Rogers: Yes, I think Judith's point of view is very valid, Reg, provided the movement never forgets that it is the unalienable right of every man...
Stan: Or woman.
Rogers: ...or woman to rid himself...
Stan: Or herself.
Rogers: ...or herself...
Reg: Agreed.
Rogers: Thank you, brother.
Stan: Or sister.
Rogers: Or sister...where was I?
Reg: I think you'd finished.
Rogers: Oh. Right.
Reg: Further more, it it the birthright of every man...
Stan: Or woman.
Reg: Why don't you shut up about women, Stan? You're putting us off.
Stan: Women have a perfect right to play a part in our movement, Reg.
Rogers: Why are you always on about women, Stan?
Stan: ....I want to be one.
Reg: What?
Stan: I want to be a woman. From now on, I want you all to call me Loretta.
Reg: What?
Loretta: It's my right as a man.
Judith: Well, why do you want to be Loretta, Stan?
Loretta: I want to have babies.
Reg: You want to have babies?!
Loretta: It's every man's right to have babies if he wants them.
Reg: But...you can't have babies!
Loretta: Don't you opress me!
Reg: I'm not opressing you, Stan. You haven't got a womb. Where is the foetus going to gestate? You're going to keep it in a box?
Loretta: (Sniff.)
Judith: Here, I've got an idea. Suppose you agree that he can't actually have babies, not having a womb, which is nobody's fault, not even the Romans', but that he can have the right to have babies.
Rogers: Good idea, Judith. We shall fight the oppressors for your right to have babies, brother. Sister! Sorry.
Reg: What's the point?
Rogers: What?
Reg: What's the point of fighting for his right to have babies, when he can't have babies?
Rogers: It is symbolic of our struggle against oppression.
Reg: Symbolic of his struggle against reality, more like.
Reg: Agreed. Rogers?
Rogers: Yes, I think Judith's point of view is very valid, Reg, provided the movement never forgets that it is the unalienable right of every man...
Stan: Or woman.
Rogers: ...or woman to rid himself...
Stan: Or herself.
Rogers: ...or herself...
Reg: Agreed.
Rogers: Thank you, brother.
Stan: Or sister.
Rogers: Or sister...where was I?
Reg: I think you'd finished.
Rogers: Oh. Right.
Reg: Further more, it it the birthright of every man...
Stan: Or woman.
Reg: Why don't you shut up about women, Stan? You're putting us off.
Stan: Women have a perfect right to play a part in our movement, Reg.
Rogers: Why are you always on about women, Stan?
Stan: ....I want to be one.
Reg: What?
Stan: I want to be a woman. From now on, I want you all to call me Loretta.
Reg: What?
Loretta: It's my right as a man.
Judith: Well, why do you want to be Loretta, Stan?
Loretta: I want to have babies.
Reg: You want to have babies?!
Loretta: It's every man's right to have babies if he wants them.
Reg: But...you can't have babies!
Loretta: Don't you opress me!
Reg: I'm not opressing you, Stan. You haven't got a womb. Where is the foetus going to gestate? You're going to keep it in a box?
Loretta: (Sniff.)
Judith: Here, I've got an idea. Suppose you agree that he can't actually have babies, not having a womb, which is nobody's fault, not even the Romans', but that he can have the right to have babies.
Rogers: Good idea, Judith. We shall fight the oppressors for your right to have babies, brother. Sister! Sorry.
Reg: What's the point?
Rogers: What?
Reg: What's the point of fighting for his right to have babies, when he can't have babies?
Rogers: It is symbolic of our struggle against oppression.
Reg: Symbolic of his struggle against reality, more like.
13 July 2006, 02:18 PM
#17
Scooby Regular
Personally I don't believe its right to allow gay couples to adopt, lesbians to have IVF/adopt and I personally take a dim view on single women having IVF - I note that theres no mention of single men being allowed to adopt.
Its PC nonsense! If someone decides to break from the norm of traditional society then that is their choice. Under no circumstances should others have to listen to their whining, put up with new laws in order to suit these people and generally forced into this PC world we find ourselves in today.
Its PC nonsense! If someone decides to break from the norm of traditional society then that is their choice. Under no circumstances should others have to listen to their whining, put up with new laws in order to suit these people and generally forced into this PC world we find ourselves in today.
13 July 2006, 02:53 PM
#18
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2006
Location: I have ad blocked my rep - so dont waste your time!
Posts: 1,548
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
on the basis that 1/3 people divorce are we against hetrosexual married couples getting IVF as they could well end up single?
13 July 2006, 03:02 PM
#19
Scooby Regular
Originally Posted by The Snug Rhino
on the basis that 1/3 people divorce are we against hetrosexual married couples getting IVF as they could well end up single?
13 July 2006, 03:05 PM
#20
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Ascended to the next level
Posts: 7,498
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As long as it's not on teh NHS and the DSS aren't obliged to pay for this child's upbringing. I'm ok in a "i'm alright, Jack" attitude.
Although it'll probably cost the taxpayer as teh child may grow up into a mental f**k up.
And, the morals still concern me.
Although it'll probably cost the taxpayer as teh child may grow up into a mental f**k up.
And, the morals still concern me.
13 July 2006, 03:05 PM
#21
BANNED
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Playing mind games since back in the day! :D
Posts: 1,038
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As there is no such thing as a 'normal' family I fail to see why one can't think of this on a case by case basis.
I'm sure a female family could do just as bad/good a job as a male+female traditional family unit.
It seems to me some people live in a past that never even existed.
I'm sure a female family could do just as bad/good a job as a male+female traditional family unit.
It seems to me some people live in a past that never even existed.
13 July 2006, 03:05 PM
#22
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2006
Location: I have ad blocked my rep - so dont waste your time!
Posts: 1,548
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by EddScott
Obviously not. IVF should be based on what is fact as of the day the couple are consulted.
bit naive to be in charge of creating life but ignore the changability of life?
personaly i dont care about IVF.....there are a zillion kids born into **** lives everyday from slums in africa to abusive parents in slough.
giving a couple of lesbos their chance hardly seems like it will tip the scales.
13 July 2006, 03:08 PM
#23
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Talk to the hand....
Posts: 13,331
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
More of the same 'Human Rights' bollox.
Sadly, the life artificially created by IVF will of course have no 'rights' in the matter other than to become a trendy fashion accessory for deviants or cash cow for single parent benefit scroungers.
This country has gone to hell in a hand cart under New Labour.
Sadly, the life artificially created by IVF will of course have no 'rights' in the matter other than to become a trendy fashion accessory for deviants or cash cow for single parent benefit scroungers.
This country has gone to hell in a hand cart under New Labour.
13 July 2006, 03:14 PM
#24
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Derbyshire
Posts: 12,304
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by The Snug Rhino
on the basis that 1/3 people divorce are we against hetrosexual married couples getting IVF as they could well end up single?
13 July 2006, 03:47 PM
#26
Scooby Regular
Originally Posted by The Snug Rhino
bit naive to be in charge of creating life but ignore the changability of life?
You can't anticipate what someone is going to do with thier lives. Like in the other post about the lads mum buggering off with another bird. He could have been produced via IVF.
You'd have to go on what is fact today not what will happen in X years.
13 July 2006, 04:33 PM
#27
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2006
Location: I have ad blocked my rep - so dont waste your time!
Posts: 1,548
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by EddScott
Not really no.
You can't anticipate what someone is going to do with thier lives. Like in the other post about the lads mum buggering off with another bird. He could have been produced via IVF.
You'd have to go on what is fact today not what will happen in X years.
You can't anticipate what someone is going to do with thier lives. Like in the other post about the lads mum buggering off with another bird. He could have been produced via IVF.
You'd have to go on what is fact today not what will happen in X years.
13 July 2006, 04:35 PM
#28
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London Town
Posts: 983
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
maybe 50 years ago a lot of people would be disgusted with non married couples having children, but thankfully now we have moved on. Gays couples / single parents is just another step down what I believe is enlightenment and in 50 years time will be seen as the norm.
Ted
Ted
13 July 2006, 04:39 PM
#29
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: same time, different place
Posts: 11,313
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
2 Posts
Remarkably, it means that slowly children will have less and less a link to their biological parents, and more a link to people who actually want to put effort into bringing it up (assuming they don't just want it as some sort of fashion accessory).
There's a whole thesis on ethics and philosophy, right there...
There's a whole thesis on ethics and philosophy, right there...
13 July 2006, 05:45 PM
#30
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sheffield; Rome of the North
Posts: 17,582
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Brendan Hughes
Judith: I do feel Reg, that any anti-imperialistic group like ours must reflect such a divergence of interest within its powerbase.
Reg: Agreed. Rogers?
Rogers: Yes, I think Judith's point of view is very valid, Reg, provided the movement never forgets that it is the unalienable right of every man...
Stan: Or woman.
Rogers: ...or woman to rid himself...
Stan: Or herself.
Rogers: ...or herself...
Reg: Agreed.
Rogers: Thank you, brother.
Stan: Or sister.
Rogers: Or sister...where was I?
Reg: I think you'd finished.
Rogers: Oh. Right.
Reg: Further more, it it the birthright of every man...
Stan: Or woman.
Reg: Why don't you shut up about women, Stan? You're putting us off.
Stan: Women have a perfect right to play a part in our movement, Reg.
Rogers: Why are you always on about women, Stan?
Stan: ....I want to be one.
Reg: What?
Stan: I want to be a woman. From now on, I want you all to call me Loretta.
Reg: What?
Loretta: It's my right as a man.
Judith: Well, why do you want to be Loretta, Stan?
Loretta: I want to have babies.
Reg: You want to have babies?!
Loretta: It's every man's right to have babies if he wants them.
Reg: But...you can't have babies!
Loretta: Don't you opress me!
Reg: I'm not opressing you, Stan. You haven't got a womb. Where is the foetus going to gestate? You're going to keep it in a box?
Loretta: (Sniff.)
Judith: Here, I've got an idea. Suppose you agree that he can't actually have babies, not having a womb, which is nobody's fault, not even the Romans', but that he can have the right to have babies.
Rogers: Good idea, Judith. We shall fight the oppressors for your right to have babies, brother. Sister! Sorry.
Reg: What's the point?
Rogers: What?
Reg: What's the point of fighting for his right to have babies, when he can't have babies?
Rogers: It is symbolic of our struggle against oppression.
Reg: Symbolic of his struggle against reality, more like.
Reg: Agreed. Rogers?
Rogers: Yes, I think Judith's point of view is very valid, Reg, provided the movement never forgets that it is the unalienable right of every man...
Stan: Or woman.
Rogers: ...or woman to rid himself...
Stan: Or herself.
Rogers: ...or herself...
Reg: Agreed.
Rogers: Thank you, brother.
Stan: Or sister.
Rogers: Or sister...where was I?
Reg: I think you'd finished.
Rogers: Oh. Right.
Reg: Further more, it it the birthright of every man...
Stan: Or woman.
Reg: Why don't you shut up about women, Stan? You're putting us off.
Stan: Women have a perfect right to play a part in our movement, Reg.
Rogers: Why are you always on about women, Stan?
Stan: ....I want to be one.
Reg: What?
Stan: I want to be a woman. From now on, I want you all to call me Loretta.
Reg: What?
Loretta: It's my right as a man.
Judith: Well, why do you want to be Loretta, Stan?
Loretta: I want to have babies.
Reg: You want to have babies?!
Loretta: It's every man's right to have babies if he wants them.
Reg: But...you can't have babies!
Loretta: Don't you opress me!
Reg: I'm not opressing you, Stan. You haven't got a womb. Where is the foetus going to gestate? You're going to keep it in a box?
Loretta: (Sniff.)
Judith: Here, I've got an idea. Suppose you agree that he can't actually have babies, not having a womb, which is nobody's fault, not even the Romans', but that he can have the right to have babies.
Rogers: Good idea, Judith. We shall fight the oppressors for your right to have babies, brother. Sister! Sorry.
Reg: What's the point?
Rogers: What?
Reg: What's the point of fighting for his right to have babies, when he can't have babies?
Rogers: It is symbolic of our struggle against oppression.
Reg: Symbolic of his struggle against reality, more like.