[fruit_cake]

after reading comments from UKT and Black Dagger about gay men being able to have children via surrogacy etc on another thread, I was wondering if TiBB's gay members men or women, are planning to use this as an 'option' in the future?

discuss

[Kizzy]

I would like to think that it would be an option readily accepted in the future.

[Black Dagger]

I do plan on adopting when I am finally in a happy relationship and I doubt I will worry about the consequences of 'he/she will get bullied' children are ruthless, and of course I'd want them to be happy, but at the end of the day they would have two Dad's who love them to bits... as long as I protected them I'd know I'd do the right thing.

[Sam:)]

Im not gay but I think two gay fathers>a chavvy mother who spends all the welfare on drink

[Shaun]

Adopting probably, if I settled down with a guy

[AnnieK]

Any child is lucky to have two parents who love them....other kids are cruel and it could be something they get teased for....but so could having red hair, glasses or not the right pair of trainers....love is the most important. A friend of mines sister and her wife have just had a baby and everyone has been very supportive....

[Ninastar]

yeah this is something I want to do

but I'd also love to adopt.

[Mystic Mock]

Yes, I will be very happy with a child in 50 years time.

Sorry for trolling but someone had to say it lol.

[aman201]

I'd adopt, most probably.

[lostalex]

I'd definitely adopt. I find the whole idea of needing to spread your genes perverse.

I hope that in the future all children are made in labs by the government, and only qualified responsible people are allowed to raise children. There would be a whole program. And only people that have no history of violence, have the proper means to support children, and took at least 2 years of child care training would be allowed to adopt.

I don't think having children is a human right.

[billy123]

Originally Posted by lostalex

I'd definitely adopt. I find the whole idea of needing to spread your genes perverse.

I hope that in the future all children are made in labs by the government, and only qualified responsible people are allowed to raise children. There would be a whole program. And only people that have no history of violence, have the proper means to support children, and took at least 2 years of child care training would be allowed to adopt.

I don't think having children is a human right.

Thats nothing short of insanity are you really that far gone that you believe that or are you just playing devils advocate?

I prefer to think its the latter if not enjoy your eugenics the Nazi's loved the idea.

You are such a silly sometimes alex

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by lostalex

I'd definitely adopt. I find the whole idea of needing to spread your genes perverse.

I hope that in the future all children are made in labs by the government, and only qualified responsible people are allowed to raise children. There would be a whole program. And only people that have no history of violence, have the proper means to support children, and took at least 2 years of child care training would be allowed to adopt.

I don't think having children is a human right.

Flaw in your rationale here: without the need for others to 'spread their genes'.... there would be no children to adopt - for anyone.

As for the lab comments..... I've read some whacky ideas on here - but this beats them all.

I do agree that having a child should not be a human right. I also think that yes, 2 parents (regardless of gender/sexuality) is better than one ideally but one parent - gay or not - can be as good (if not better) a parent as any other out there.

Beats the hell out of me why there are those in society who are so against gays adopting/surrogating a child - some people do want to care, love and nurture and give a good home and family life to those so very less fortunate: and it should matter not a jot if they are gay.

[lostalex]

Think about it this way, how many years of school is required for someone to be a dentist? someone who just works on your teeth. How many years of training are required to be a parent? the most important job on the planet.

There's something wrong in that equation.

I think that at puberty all children should have eggs or sperm extracted and put on freeze. Then the government would choose the best donors genetically, and then surrogates would be used to cary the children, then once the child is born, the child would go to an appropriate couple to be adopted. There would only be children created for the number of qualified parents available. No parents would ever raise their own biological children.

i think that would be a good system. Eventually I think science will advance to the point where we don't even need surrogates, we will be able to develop the embryo's in synthetic wombs.

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by lostalex

Think about it this way, how many years of school is required for someone to be a dentist? someone who just works on your teeth. How many years of training are required to be a parent? the most important job on the planet.

There's something wrong in that equation.

I'm not entirely clear what ''how many years training does it take to become a parent'' has to do with, "If you are gay, will you use the surrogacy / donor option" - which is what the thread is about.

[lostalex]

Originally Posted by Pyramid*

I'm not entirely clear what ''how many years training does it take to become a parent'' has to do with, "If you are gay, will you use the surrogacy / donor option" - which is what the thread is about.

I'm talking about adopting period. sexuality is irrelevant. I'm looking at the bigger picture. Adoption, surrogacy, procreation in general. The conversation has obviously evolved. Do try to keep up.

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by lostalex

I'm talking about adopting period. sexuality is irrelevant. I'm looking at the bigger picture. Adoption, surrogacy, procreation in general. The conversation has obviously evolved. Do try to keep up.

Talking of keeping up... and of procreation - without which there would be no adoptions etc.

Flaw in your rationale here: without the need for others to 'spread their genes'.... there would be no children to adopt - for anyone

How do you propose that adoptees are made available if people don't want to spread their genes (even via test tubes....you still need the raw material).

Sexuality is VERY relevant given the nature of the thread.

[lostalex]

Originally Posted by Pyramid*

Talking of keeping up... and of procreation - without which there would be no adoptions etc.



How do you propose that adoptees are made available if people don't want to spread their genes (even via test tubes....you still need the raw material).

Sexuality is VERY relevant given the nature of the thread.

like i said, if there was an agency that had samples of sperm and eggs from everyone, that agency could then choose the best combinations, with no thought put into who those sample came from. procreation is just as possible without any kind of sex. You do realize that sex has nothing to do with procreation anymore right? It won't be long before IVF is more common than sexual conception in the western world.

There is nothing special about heterosexual sex. IVF has nothing to do with sexual intercourse gay or straight at all.

[Jake.]

people should be able to shag and have kids, none of this lab nonsense

[lostalex]

you guys just don't see the bigger picture.

[fruit_cake]

I'm not sure I agree with the 'having a child is not a right' argument. It's not like a particular child, born into a difficult family environment ever had a chance to be born in a good environment to different parents in a different relationship!

We cannot pick and chose who create us, we are either created or not. The question is, is despite being born in an awful family without love or caring, would those that found themselves in that position still choose life, or would they choose never to have existed at all. Those are the only two possibilities that can ever have existed.

Back on topic, I personally think it's blooming marvellous that these days homosexual couples can adopt or even create children (given surrogacy). Good on them and may the force be with them as far as I'm concerned.

[fruit_cake]

I think Alex assumed the 'state' will somehow be more fair when selecting who can and can't reproduce.

The state is merely a group of people, all fallable and all just as flawed as anyone else.

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by fruit_cake

I think Alex assumed the 'state' will somehow be more fair when selecting who can and can't reproduce.

The state is merely a group of people, all fallable and all just as flawed as anyone else.

Spot on.

[flamingGalah!]

Oh dear, looks like lostalex has lost his mind again

Back on topic...

Yes me & my partner have discussed this & we would prefer to have a surrogate, but it's not something we will be rushing right now, even though we have been together for 11 years...

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by flamingGalah!

Oh dear, looks like lostalex has lost his mind again

Back on topic...

Yes me & my partner have discussed this & we would prefer to have a surrogate, but it's not something we will be rushing right now, even though we have been together for 11 years...

I'm not maternal but it really is heartbreaking when I know people who I know would make the most wonderful parents, who are even having difficult getting into fostering - so my heart really goes out to those who have to look to surrogacy etc and all that it entails. Life can be very unfair.

[Redway]

No.

You don't get to change the rules of nature just because you happen to fit into a particular group.

Gay people wanting to have kids naturally is completely ... well ... unnatural and just wrong. If they can't put up with adoption then it's not my problem.