you've answered your own question, its not ideal is it. So is it right to put the child in the situation unnecessarily

dunno why it'd be accepted if a parent brought up a child with a grandparent but as they are a same sex couple and he's a bit older it isn't

Why is it unnecessersary? Davids in his 40's. Theres absolutely no problem. People drop dead in their 20's. FFS just be happy in life. That kids going to have the world

each to their own obviously, im not totally closed off to the idea im just not sure its whats best for a child. Obviously its miles better than neglect and a dysfuctional family but compared to a mum and dad i dont think it is an equivalent option.

Well obviously nature says thats the best way. But times change

Uh, no. He's past it.

Just read they may be planning for another. Davids told Elton he'd like another by 2013 and they shouldn't wait long (according to the papers so take as you will)

I think it's irresponsible to become a parent in your 60s to a new born child. I think the life expectancy in the UK is just short of 80 years old; so the underlying worry in all of this is that their child is going to lose him as a parent when they're a teenager in all likelihood - there's no way to predict the future, but being realistic, that is a very real and potential worry. You can throw arguments about single parents, same sex parents and bad parents around but when it comes down to it, the one thing a child needs the most is to be loved - it seems very cruel and irresponsible to me that Elton's taking on the role of a father when it's likely that his child is going to lose him long before most other children of his age will lose their father. This isn't any reflection on David's ability to be a parent, this is purely about how, from a realist point of view, it's irresponsible of Elton John to become a parent in his 60s. Why now? Why couldn't he have done this a few years ago, giving him more time? That question lends credibility to the argument of those saying it's partially about symbolism, not just a desire to have children. I don't really want to read into it too much because all of that aside, I think he'll be a great parent; he'll be able to give his son anything he wants.

arista, your fixation on him having a son and not a daughter seems to suggest some kind of sinister undertone, if you're implying some kind of seedy homosexual, incestuous comment or implying that Elton hates women, then just say it instead of persistently skirting around whatever point you're trying to make and avoiding answering people who are asking you what you mean. So what if he's been trying for a boy? Is it not the norm for expecting parents to have hopes for either a boy or a girl? Not all parents have a preference, but some do, so why is it any different in his case? Some men want sons so they can pass on their hobbies and interests, take them to the football; other men want daughters so they can spoil them rotten and give them away on their wedding day - these are stereotypical examples but I hope I get my point across. Why does it matter? He has his reasons.

"Why does it matter"


People Like Elton will Kill off BabyGirls
that is not right.

Congrats to Elton and David! :D

I LOL'ed at this thread title.

:laugh2:

You're deluded and prejudiced.

Not me.


He should have had a Baby Girl.

arista is nothing more than a troll. Ignore.

Nice to see censorship is alive and well. Stalin and Mao would be so proud. *rolls eyes*

I really do see this as a trend kind of thing with some celebs. More money than love.

There are plenty of people who have kids for all the wrong reasons:

a) to try and save a faltering relationship
b) to get a leg up the housing list
c) to get extra state benefits and tax breaks
d) to fulfil other people's expectations
e) to accessorise their lifestyle (countless celebs guilty of this; Madonna, Jolie etc)


then don't let's forget the thousands upon thousands of feckless people (married or not) who have kids left, right and centre because they've never heard of contraception, and those kids are left to drag themselves up with all the commensurate problems for society later on.

The real reason people are censuring Elton is because he is old, gay and rich - all lynching crimes apparently:bored:

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/...65_634x588.jpg

Protective shield: Elton John and his newborn son were deemed too offensive
for young shoppers at a grocery store in Arkansas, U.S.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz1CK7c2kUO


http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/...49_634x826.jpg
Uncovered: Elton John and his husband of five years David Furnish
proudly showed off their baby son
Zachary Jackson Levi Furnish John
who was born via a surrogate mother on Christmas Day


Thats America for you.

Elton John = bored millionaire.

What is tragic is the vile Celtic strip the baby is in

that is child abuse

It's always amusing to read the Daily Mail's highest rated comments under articles like these, shows how bigoted all their readers are

Top rated: "So there's freedom of expression when it comes to gay rights, but hetrosexual concerned parents have none. I see. Bit of an extremist one way street, isn't it"

3rd highest rated: "Those customers have every right to protest that cover. Believe it or not, our freedom of expression in this country extends to freedom of our individual ideas and beliefs, as well, regardless of whether or not they're popular or the "norm" -- just as the gays do. To hell with political correctness!"

These are valid views and are popular

dont mistake your views for truths

they are just your views

Very true and if they want to believe that then go ahead. What annoys me is the way that they fervently deny having anything against gay people but you'll find them repeatedly taking the anti-homosexual point of view; they wouldnt be happy until it was forced back into the closet and eliminated throughout the whole of society.

I wasnt trying to say they were wrong exactly, I was just pointing out what I consider to be the bigoted nature of the majority of their readers.

Good post

I agree

Whereas the readers of the Guardian, Independent, Telegraph,Times etc are of course totally unbiased, completely non PC, and absolutely politically and morally balanced:bored: Yeah, sure they are:pat:

Well you managed to miss the point :pat: