does Charlie know he\'s GAY?
 

in last nights LF Charlie was saying that he wanted to have children.and he also said he wanted them when he's still young:rolleyes: how does he intend to have children if he's GAY:joker:

have i missed something:conf:

Gay men are physically capable of having sexual intercourse with women. They can also provide sperm for insemination.

I don't really see what the problem is. It is becoming much more common.

Yes, your not aware there are many Gay Parents in Britain today.

yeah he loves cock

:puzzled: so you think he should get a girl pregnant just so he can have children that end up on jeremy kyle:joker:

Wow, this post shows how narrow-minded some people really are.

so what ( moral ) way is he going to get his two children?. he wants a boy first then a girl. should he pop down the shop and buy them:joker:

I have already identified two ways. I still don't see what the problem is.

having sexual intercourse with women
provide sperm for insemination.

i said moral way :mad:

I'm afraid men cannot produce babies on there own. A female is needed in the use of sexual intercourse. Just plain sciene.

You think having sex and using insemination techniques is "immoral"?

for a gay male to use insemination techniques to fetch a child into the worldYES

What about a heterosexual couple using artificial insemination techniques if they cannot conceive normally?

hes retarded maybe he thinks men can give birth?

that's the moral way:wink:

So the problem you have with it is the homosexuality, rather than the methods.

it's your ****ed up way of thinking that's destroying society:mad:

Why cant men look after babies. Would you be the same if it was 2 women?

Curious. Up until this point we have merely been discussing what it is you think. And up to this point I have made no explicit moral judgement on anything. I fail to see why you have suddenly become annoyed.

We have established through a kind of Socratic discourse that you have no moral objection to heterosexual couples using insemination techniques but that you do have a moral objection to homosexuals employing such techniques. It would seem to follow from that that the source of your objection is the homosexuality rather than the methods used. This is just elementary reasoning at present.

Adoption, Fostering, Artificial Insemination. You're either about 8 years old, an idiot or a wind-up merchant. I'm going for the latter.

adoption, surrogacy to name but two.

it's your moral judgement that's getting me annoyed.you seem to be saying that it's ok for him to go get a girl pregnant or use insemination techniques just to get a child. i have no problem with his sexuality but if he's GAY then he shouldn't expect to have children. unless he was adopting

Seriously, are you an idiot? Before, you was confused about HOW he'd get a child and you don't want him to get one through insemination, he must adopt. What a load of b*llocks. Moral implications are there for the few with tunnel vision that refuse to see an open world. Don't know if you've heard of this... free will!

Actually I had made no moral judgement on any matter in any of my posts, as anyone who reads this thread can freely observe. As I pointed out, we were discussing what it is you think on the matter and I was asking a series of questions to clarify your position precisely.

Now, let's move on with that.

What is the difference, do you think, between a heterosexual couple conceiving "just to get a child", and, for example, a couple consisting of two homosexual males enlisting the assistance of a happy and willing female surrogate in order to have a child?

He did say he would like to do charity work in Africa… perhaps he would nab one on the way back.

So, let me get this straight (no pun intended, honest).........

Charlie wants to become a father.
He wants this to happen while he's still quite young.
He's gay.


So, what he really wants is to become a 'sperm donor' for a woman who wants to be a 'single mother' and thus become a 'part-time father'?

Or does he envisage a 'relationship of convenience' where he shares a home-life with a woman and child/children while both of them feel free to pursue romantic relationships outside the family home?


I'm really sorry Charlie, even with the very best of intentions, I can see somebody getting hurt eventually - no matter how much you want children.

Children are NOT a life-style accessory like a new mobile phone, latest pair of trainers or the newest piece of technology - they actually DESERVE a life-time commitment (meaning the parents lifetimes not just their own) from at least one, preferrably BOTH, parents.

I fell bad for the kid! :thumbs:

What a load of sh1t, how many women every day do this. But suddenly when a man wants to do it, no, no, no, no, no. No, I'm not gay or sticking up for Charlie etc. just for what's right. Some people really do need to open their minds.

What is the difference, do you think, between a heterosexual couple conceiving "just to get a child", and, for example, a couple consisting of two homosexual males enlisting the assistance of a happy and willing female surrogate in order to have a child?

http://img15.imageshack.us/img15/4299/cakejie.jpg

you can't have your cake and eat it:laugh2:

people have accepted his way off life.he should accept the FACT that two males DONT HAVE children:whistle:

They do! There's no difference between a heterosexual couple that can't have children doing something to get a baby than their is a gay couple doing it.

Well, we have already established that you have no objection to gay males adopting children. You said that in an earlier post. Yet there seems to be some conflict between that statement and your latest post.

Let's clarify your position:

You have no moral objection to gay males adopting children.

You have no moral objection to heterosexual couples conceiving using insemination techniques.

You do have a moral objection to homosexuals employing a willing female to act as a surrogate and employing insemination techniques to conceive a child.

A further question: let us imagine a heterosexual couple, in which the female is unable to bear and carry a child, would you have any moral objection to said couple employing a willing female to act as a surrogate and employing insemination techniques to conceive a child, which would be carried by the surrogate but raised by the couple?

:tongue: man and woman = child
:tongue: man and man = sore bottom:laugh2:

women are taking it up the b-m now adays LOL

You've completely ignored what I said because you know you're completely wrong. Do you have a problem with surrogacy when a heterosexual couple can't have children?

:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::l augh2::laugh2:

You're a *****ing idiot, I'm done with trying to reason with you. Pathetic.

+ karma

I agree with you - too many WOMEN do this as well without thinking about it first.

I will repeat that it's not right - for ANYBODY to deliberately put their own 'desire to have a child' before the long-term need for the child to have life-long love and stability.

What a lot of talk stemming from a fairly vague statement by Charlie. He can't actually have a child until he gets through puberty....