DragonofAna Posted September 19, 2008 Share Posted September 19, 2008 It seems reasonable to observe that, if that is their main objective, they should not distract from it by producing blatantly stupid arguments about trying to bar lesbians from having children. In your opinion this is blatantly stupid. We do not all share your godlike opinion. It is not natural for children to be raised by lesbians or gays. It is natural for children to have a mother and a father involved in the raising of those children. That a mother automatically gets more rights to a child when a relationship breaks down is wrong. That the mother may decide she is a lesbian does not make this right. For two women to want rights to have and raise a child is wrong in my opinion. Some people will disagree and good for them. The fact is that these lesbian couples can break up just like normal relationships, and then what happens? A battle between two women for legal rights to the child? That should be interesting - though not for the child. Liberal views as held by some on this forum, perpetually voiced by them in response to every non-conformist view, are really annoying. Dragon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heyesey Posted September 19, 2008 Share Posted September 19, 2008 In your opinion this is blatantly stupid. It's not an opinion. It is not natural for children to be raised by lesbians or gays. It is natural for children to have a mother and a father involved in the raising of those children. That's not yet been demonstrated either. All we have is people pounding their drums and shouting "It's unnatural!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archaeobard Posted September 19, 2008 Share Posted September 19, 2008 ............................................................. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Shark Posted September 19, 2008 Share Posted September 19, 2008 Fathers 4 justice are right on this issue. Perhaps if fathers had the same rights as gay/lesbian carers, perhaps we would not have so many mess up kids. Whether you like it or not, a child needs to know its natuaral parents not a pair of "look at me" oddballs. From a childs point of view, what would you think they rather have ? their real dad or, mum and er......???? why do you only state gay/lesbian carers and not parents? and my baby would be born to me, i would carry a child myself so does this mean by your "real mum and dad" combo that the man i used the sperm of should be the father at all time and i should be with him? As someone else said mr_busdriver gay/lesbians are not having or adopting become look at me oddballs, but to let the child they may be adopting have a better life then they would with their biological parents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DragonofAna Posted September 19, 2008 Share Posted September 19, 2008 It's not an opinion. That's not yet been demonstrated either. All we have is people pounding their drums and shouting "It's unnatural!" It is your opinion rather than statement of fact as I disagree with your opinion and do not think their action is blatantly anything at all. And as for demonstrated - how can anyone anywhere prove anything to you that you do not want to believe? We - humans - are just animals, and it is natural in the animal kingdom for males and females to be involved in the raising of children - not lesbian or gay animals. If the whole natural world is doing something then it would suggest that this is the natural way of things would it not? Dragon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jessica23 Posted September 19, 2008 Share Posted September 19, 2008 In your opinion this is blatantly stupid. We do not all share your godlike opinion. It is not natural for children to be raised by lesbians or gays. It is natural for children to have a mother and a father involved in the raising of those children. That a mother automatically gets more rights to a child when a relationship breaks down is wrong. That the mother may decide she is a lesbian does not make this right. For two women to want rights to have and raise a child is wrong in my opinion. Some people will disagree and good for them. The fact is that these lesbian couples can break up just like normal relationships, and then what happens? A battle between two women for legal rights to the child? That should be interesting - though not for the child. Liberal views as held by some on this forum, perpetually voiced by them in response to every non-conformist view, are really annoying. Dragon It's not 'natural' for heterosexual couples to have IVF or fertility treatment either. It's called progress. I'm really sorry that you find liberal views annoying. If it wasn't for all the bigotry, we wouldn't have to keep spouting them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heyesey Posted September 19, 2008 Share Posted September 19, 2008 It is your opinion rather than statement of fact No, it ain't. F4J have committed acts which have cost them a large amount of support. That's goddam stupid in anybody's book. Opinion does not enter into it. And as for demonstrated - how can anyone anywhere prove anything to you that you do not want to believe? We - humans - are just animals, and it is natural in the animal kingdom for males and females to be involved in the raising of children - not lesbian or gay animals. If the whole natural world is doing something then it would suggest that this is the natural way of things would it not? I'll give you that. And since, in the vast majority of animal species, the fathers is not involved in the raising of children, I think you've blown your own argument to dust. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shims Posted September 19, 2008 Share Posted September 19, 2008 Lesbians having children is every bit as 'natural' as heterosexual women doing so. Hardly. Before C20th developments they would have needed to have heterosexual relations to achieve this. IVF is unnatural regardless of who sexuality of the would be mother, that doesn't make it immoral though as contrary to what you seem to think 'natural' and 'moral' aren't synonymous. Nor are 'natural' and 'desirable', 'natural' and 'tolerable'... I think you'll find I didn't actually have this discussion. Additionally, it's not about what I consider natural. What I described is natural. It is not as you state a situation where "we suddenly turn round and try to impose a uniform structure for the family unit". A mother, father and their children is not a new concept. If people wish to set up in some different variation of a family unit that is their choice. Nobody is preventing them. What makes little sense is when people try to twist a natural situation into some sort of abnomal societal construct. As I said already, the idea of the "lesbo-dad" may be seen by FNF as another marginalisation of the father's role child rearing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DragonofAna Posted September 19, 2008 Share Posted September 19, 2008 why do you only state gay/lesbian carers and not parents? and my baby would be born to me, i would carry a child myself so does this mean by your "real mum and dad" combo that the man i used the sperm of should be the father at all time and i should be with him? As someone else said mr_busdriver gay/lesbians are not having or adopting become look at me oddballs, but to let the child they may be adopting have a better life then they would with their biological parents. I think the point is that the father of the child should have the same rights as the mother - and where would that place the other lesbian/gay member of the relationship? Things are complicated enough without having three way legal tussles for who gets to care for a child and when. There are many wives and husbands couples out there who would like to adopt or have children but are unable because of the current legal system - and now lets confuse things even more with bringing same sex families into the mess. Dragon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plekhanov Posted September 19, 2008 Author Share Posted September 19, 2008 Sounds like a load of bunkum to me. Aha! What does? All this banter against Fathers4Justice when surely their main objective is to get legal rights for the father of a child. Then why are they attacking lesbian's rights rather than fighting for rights for fathers? This isn't a zero sum game, lesbian's having the right to IVF treatment in no way takes any rights whatsoever from fathers. Of course it is not natural for the male to be left out of the child's upbringing. It's the most natural thing in the world, men have been 'left out of the child's upbringing' dues to abandoning them, never having known the mother was pregnant, death... for as long as there have been people. How can this be proven? It cannot - but there aren't many cases in the animal world where the father is excluded from a relationship with its offspring. What complete rubbish there are huge numbers of species where only females care for the offspring, there are species where only males care for the offspring and there are enormous numbers of species where neither the male nor the female provides any care whatsoever and have no relationship at all with their offspring. Come to think of it - there are not that many lesbian or gay couples in the natural world. I can't think of any that have developed IVF treatment, does this mean IVF is wrong? Of course - for some on here that would mean that the few instances of this happening must be the norm, and that nature must be completely screwed up. It doesn't mean it's 'the norm' it just means that it's 'natural' as if that matters anyway. Fathers4Justice deserve support for the purpose of trying to get better rights for fathers. Ready and waiting Dragon And attacking lesbians is supposed to further this aim how exactly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.