Following on from the IVF thread,,,,,,,,Gay parenting???

@forumhostpb wrote:

I really don’t understand this ”Gay parenting” issue.

It strikes me that male homosexuals prefer to stuff it up each other’s arses and therefore they know that producing offspring is not on the menu.

Equally female homosexuals prefer sex between themselves and men are not included. As they prefer sperm-free sex then they should just get on with the pussy munching and accept that this lifestyle precludes having babies.

Not agreeing or disagreeing with that, but what about when someone “comes out” (And I dont mean when they withdraw prior to goo splattering lol) when they are ALREADY parents?

Their “lifestyle choice” was either to not become gay till later life, to be bisexual then decide which side of the fence they prefer or to simply ignore their gay urges hoping it would vanish and then find it hadnt done?

Of course if being gay WAS ever found to be a genetic flaw that couldnt be fixed rather than majoratively a psychological issue we could then place known genetically gay kids with gay parents couldnt we? Which would surely be a good thing IF the child is going to be unnavoidably a turd tapper or kebab muncher later in life, therefore reserving genetically straight kids to be parented by straight parents?

But your comments also links to sterile people having IVF, their sex cant produce kids either

And women who choose a lifestyle based around a career but THEN want kids when they cant have them without the aid of IVF, how are they any different? So should they also be banned? Because although not a sexual lifestyle choice, it IS still a non procreative lifestyle choice just the same?

:lol:

@cas wrote:

I personally don’t think a ”perfect” as you put it, parent, exists.

As parents, we do our best…..I personally work in the licenced trade, i’m a Manager for a branch of Threshers. I see plenty parents coming in there, buying alchohol, I sell it to them, doesn’t make them bad parents, doesn’t make me a bad parent because I like to have a drink.

But Uber………….if it came to a choice of putting a meal on the table, or buying a bottle of alchohol, it would definately be a meal on the table,,,,,I can’t say the same thing for some of the customers who come into the shop. Who, having bought their alchohol and cigarettes, scream expletives at the child when it has the audacity to ask for a bag of crisps or a packet of sweets, with the words, ”I aint got the money for sweets!!!!!”

I have on many occassions given the child the sweets or crisps. So whether you like it or not, Sweet does have a very valid point.

But isnt that the exact same point I made?

That most people who are clinically classed as alcoholics arent drunken bums who never have food in for their kids? Look up the definition of an alcoholic, its simply someone who HAS to have a drink, cant do without it. Many of them have well paid jobs and can quite capably manage both and are often not even thought of as having a “problem” by anyone who knows them

But it CAN still have an adverse effect on their kids many years down the road as can many quite ordinary occurences in a household which are far LESS obvious than the likely negatives from growing up in a gay single sex parenting enviroment

The point I was making there is nobody bats an eyelid at theorising the possible harm any factor in a straight household might have, but try to get people to do the EXACT SAME thing where gay people are concerned and the “oooh you homophobe”, “your a gay basher” or “are you secretly gay” nonsense is wheeled out because people in general have been brainwashed into feeling its “wrong” to discuss or examine aspects of gay peoples lives that wouldnt be given a second thought if being done to straight people which is usually quite clearly shown when I wheel threads like this out for the first time on a message board as its a good one for seeing the thought behind peoples views

@cas wrote:

@ubermik wrote:

@cas wrote:

I personally don’t think a ”perfect” as you put it, parent, exists.

As parents, we do our best…..I personally work in the licenced trade, i’m a Manager for a branch of Threshers. I see plenty parents coming in there, buying alchohol, I sell it to them, doesn’t make them bad parents, doesn’t make me a bad parent because I like to have a drink.

But Uber………….if it came to a choice of putting a meal on the table, or buying a bottle of alchohol, it would definately be a meal on the table,,,,,I can’t say the same thing for some of the customers who come into the shop. Who, having bought their alchohol and cigarettes, scream expletives at the child when it has the audacity to ask for a bag of crisps or a packet of sweets, with the words, ”I aint got the money for sweets!!!!!”

I have on many occassions given the child the sweets or crisps. So whether you like it or not, Sweet does have a very valid point.

But isnt that the exact same point I made?

That most people who are clinically classed as alcoholics arent drunken bums who never have food in for their kids? Look up the definition of an alcoholic, its simply someone who HAS to have a drink, cant do without it. Many of them have well paid jobs and can quite capably manage both and are often not even thought of as having a “problem” by anyone who knows them

But it CAN still have an adverse effect on their kids many years down the road as can many quite ordinary occurences in a household which are far LESS obvious than the likely negatives from growing up in a gay single sex parenting enviroment

The point I was making there is nobody bats an eyelid at theorising the possible harm any factor in a straight household might have, but try to get people to do the EXACT SAME thing where gay people are concerned and the “oooh you homophobe”, “your a gay basher” or “are you secretly gay” nonsense is wheeled out because people in general have been brainwashed into feeling its “wrong” to discuss or examine aspects of gay peoples lives that wouldnt be given a second thought if being done to straight people which is usually quite clearly shown when I wheel threads like this out for the first time on a message board as its a good one for seeing the thought behind peoples views

I wasn’t accusing you of anything Uber, just asking the question.

While your theorising tho, that many people who might have a drug or alchohol problem but who also hold down well paid jobs and look after their kids. There are also those who don’t. Those who do have drug/alchohol problems, bang out kids by the dozen because theyre too ”out of it” to think about contraceptive, much less use it. Children which are paid for out of the benefits office, ultimately the tax payer, the parent continuing their choice of lifestyle, ie., drugs/alchohol, instead of using the money given them to care for their children properly. So,,,,,thats where Sweet, does have a very valid point, you can dress it up all you like, with the so called, responsible drug/alchohol users, there are plenty who don’t give a sh it about anyone or anything when it comes to the next fix, and will!! neglect their children and sell their own mothers. If you think that’s wrong, then I think you must be living on another planet!

But unless ONLY the sort of benefit funded child hoarding absolutely “out of it” type of alcoholic or drug user exists then her statement as it WAS an all encompassing one isnt valid

Whereas if you check mine you will see words like “many” and “some” as no statement concerning any social group is all encompassing, the media just wants people to think that it is

Infact the examples many take as being the majorative norm are infact in most cases usually just a minority, but a minority used to great effect by the government and media to create a desired public opinion and assumption

As for the cost of these beer swilling, drug taking benefit scum, 1) They would get the same money even if they were drug free and tea total and 2) the entire cost for them, and infact the entire benefit system is, with PFI’s (public finance initiatives) being one of the worst offenders having created many millionaires and turned many existing ones into multimillionaires with tax payers money and making public services and buildings cost as much as 5 times what they should have cost and yet no or very little attention either publicly or by the media is paid to them VERY coincidentally lol

And yet where is the drive to sort out internal government wastage and practices? Well that wont happen as long as the majority can be made to shift from one group of “baddies” to another endlessly blaming them for the shortfall in publicly available money

Get any issue of private eye (literally ANY issue) and a piece of paper and add up the amount of money wasted on frivolity by central government and local government and you will see that the bulk of money the government doesnt have isnt because of the ageing population, the unemployed, single parents or any of those things as much as they try to convince the unquestioning sheep minded majority of the fact, its wasted by them and is compounded further by their private business dealings which financially protect their future at the expense of everyone elses

And even putting that aside, I would rather see a million quid given in benefits to an indigenous single mother with a drink and drug problem whose extended family and forebears have all or many of whom HAVE paid into the system than a hundred quid being given to some benefits tourist who turns up on a plane, boat or train ready to drop her sprog in the softest healthcare and benefits nation on earth