Mum & Mum and the child

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles /news/news.html?in_article_id=491488&in_page_i d=1770

Just another step to the complete break up of the traditional family.

How can a child have two Mums, if Female partners wish to have a child, then one partner should be called Dad and the other Mum.

And why are Men in same sex relationships who have children through surrogate mothers not expected to be covered by the new legislation?

Isn't this sexual discrimination?

[saxy_jag]

I don't think there is such a thing as 'the traditional family' anymore, unless we define it as one of infinite variety. Times change and our lives with them, and if homosexual couples are capable of providing a loving, secure and stable home for their kids without the input of a 'parent' of their opposite gender, then that's fine. Many kids grow up without fathers in their lives, or even father figures (ie. stepfathers etc). It doesn't always damage a child.

Dr Cole may be correct in stating that children need male influence in their lives, but he fails to address the fact that many fathers have the worst possible influence in their kids.

That said, I think this legislation should include male couples. As you said, not to include them would seem to amount to sexual discrimination.

[Ethel]

I'm surprised you don't recall the number of families with a mother and an 'aunt' during and after the war.

It was common, although the sexual nature of the relationship between the two women was usually ignored.

[Whickerman]

Antheoldgit - I couldn't care less about your sexual feelings. Really, it makes no difference to my life.

Now, that being the case, I expand it to pretty much everyone else too. I don't care what their preference is, so long as consenting adults are involved.

So far as families go - the same applies. So long as it's a happy healthy unit, I don't care if it contains same sex couples, hetero couples, or martians.
(I agree with your point re sexual discrimination btw - you're 100% correct.)

And be honest here. You're talking about a point of principlem and I accept and admire that - the fact that you obviously have strong principles (pity more people don't). But I'll say to you what I said to one of my workmates this week when discussing same-sex marriages (soon to be introduced here in Ireland). Who am i to tell you who you can love? Who am I to tell you what your feelings should be? Who am I to forbid you to have what I have just because we're different? And who am I to label you? If both want to be called mum, that's great. I have no problem with a child feeling so special that they have 2 mums. Having one is special. Having 2 would be tremendous.

[anotheoldgit]

Ethel I can remember quite a few Mothers and Uncles, but I cannot bring to mind any Mothers and Aunts, not living together at least.

[Kromovaracun]

A family unit doesn't need to be traditional to work. Apart from gender perspectives on things (which are less relevant today anyway), there's no logical reason a homosexual couple can't provide anything for a child that a heterosexual couple can (apart from some bizarre fixation with the idea that 'that's how it was done in the olden days which is rather silly).

It might break with what's 'traditional' in a rather minor way but there isn't really any reason why that should be considered bad in this case. It is rather odd that male couples aren't covered though.

[Theland]

This is just one more example of our society going down the pan!

[sp1814]

Theland

Whaddya mean???

[Whickerman]

Whose society Theland? It fits right in with my view of how the world should be. People happy together, and in firm stable relationships.

[netibiza]

I don't want to be insulting to gays, but in that photo they bothed looked gorgeous, not quite true to life eh!!

[saxy_jag]

Know what you mean, netibiza. Very contrived, isn't it? Like something from a photo-library. We're friendly with a lesbian couple who have teenage girls, and although the girls are pretty and the mums not what you'd call ugly, none of them look that perfect.

Still, at least it's not the usual stereotype of two crop-haired, butch women wearing boiler suits and doc martens, so I guess we ought to be grateful for that.

[wiggal]

Both my sister and her wife are absolutely stunning, so there are some out their like that photo! :)

[New Judge]

Homosexual couples (of either gender) cannot reproduce naturally. (I�ll stand by for somebody out there to tell me otherwise, so I�ll say �cannot generally reproduce naturally�!). They can only �have� children either by the intervention of science or administration. The former solution has only been available fairly recently; the latter course has always been available but only used fairly recently.

This arrangement, whilst perhaps being a little inconvenient for gays and lesbians, is the way nature intended it.

That�s all I�ll say. I�ll now sit back and wait for the flack. A few may agree with me. Those who support the philosophy of artificially making parents out of same-sex couples will take a different stance. They will ask me, since I appear to be in favour of allowing nature taking its course, whether I also agree that we should allow human beings to die of trivial diseases. Meantime I�ll remind myself (as I always do when I break my rule) why I don�t get involved (generally) in matters of opinion!

[Whickerman]

new judge - you're assuming that being gay is a genetic trait that can be passed from parent to child. It's not. Neither is it a disease or a failing. You're correct though, gay couples conceiving is new through science, and it's something to be celebrated.

I'm not sure what you feel is controversial in your post, you've stated fact and not opinion. If you're implying it's unnatural for gay people to have kids, then it also follows that couples who have infertility problems have children unnaturally...?

[sp1814]

Dammit Whickerman...I wanted to make the point about infertile straight couples.

[New Judge]

I have a list of things I'm expecting to be cited as "similar" and infertile couples was at the top.

Just because something can be done is not always sufficient reason to say it should be done. I believe enabling same sex couples and infertile couples to have children fall into this category.

I'd love to be able to play snooker to professional standard. I cannot but I don't expect the medical profession to find a way to enable me to do so.

Some people can play snooker well, some cannot. Some people can have children, some cannot. You have to play the cards with which you are dealt.

[sp1814]

New Judge - but of course gay couples can have children.

Just not with each other.

Just because someone's gay, doesn't mean their sexual organs suddenly disappear!

[Goodsoulette]

AS long as it is considered ok for infertile couples to be enabled to have children then I think the same should apply to same sex relationships. I personally think that infertility is natures way of keeping the population down and we should interfer with this. Of course I havent suffered the heartache of not being able to conceive but I truly believe I would have headed into adoption territory instead of IVF.