[Closed] Sir Elton John receives the greatest gift of all!

Why is it wrong to do what Elton John and David Furnish have done?

ou want to knwo why it is wrong to buy a baby from someone?
Can you buy an adult or just a child?

No, I want you to tell me why you think it's wrong.

Can you buy an adult or just a child?

I'll happily buy a child... but first I need to know if they'll be good for heavy manual work? I'm thinking of putting a new patio in.

so you do want me to tell you why it is wrong to buy babies then 😯 It surprises that me that you need this explaining tbh and no doubt you will disagree. I dont think you should be able to buy human life however well intentioned it may be. Assuming you are ok with the trading of human life can i have an adult please? Much like TSY I need one but I think an adult will be much more skilled at the manual labour aspect of patio laying. A baby would be useless IMHO. As usual TSY has just not thought it through properly.

I'm not being argumentative, I just want to understand the reasoning behind some of the opinions and beliefs offered on this thread.

Of course I fully understand society's view on this but I'm simply trying to dig out why you, or anyone else, subscribes to that view.

Your post only explained that you think it's wrong, nothing was offered to support why you think it's wrong.

And FWIW the child isn't being bought for nefarious reasons; they just want to have a child of their own to love and bring up.

All that geetee1972 did there was recycle some red top tabloid paranoia rant as his own opinion and you clapped

Er no. I am quite capable of making up my own mind which comes from being married for some considerable time and having two children who are now adults. So actually I think I am perfectly qualified to comment.

Without wishing to come across as some boring old fogey, I do believe we all need to conform, in some way, and for me that meant within a family unit. This was how both myself and my ex husband had been bought up and we had both appreciated the stability of that family unit.

Naturally I accept this does not work for everyone. But what I do have a problem with is folk who think life is cheap and are more concerned with satisfying their own vanity. As has been mentioned, other 'famous' people such as Madonna have done similar.

A child is not a commodity and, believe me, they are bloomin' hard work particularly in their teenage years. It's a huge responsibility and I like to think I did a fairly good job.

Elton John's lifestyle surely does not bode well in the sense that he tours around the world so what happens to the child's education? Will the child be able to make lasting friendships? Will he have the balanced input that both a mother and a father can give? My son needed regular operations/hospital treatment from the age of 3 to 17 - I was always there for him. Could Elton if the situation arose?

Money does not solve everything. It takes more than that to be a good parent.

Finally, I will not apologise for my moral stance.

(now awaits some vitriol from somebody) 🙄

It's a huge responsibility and I like to think I did a fairly good job

I'll be the judge of that! Send your eldest born daughter (positive discrimination before anyone asks)...

c/o TSY
Yeti Towers

*wonders if [i]she'll[/i] be good to lay a patio*

At least I answered the question I notice you have failed , numerous times, to say whether it is ok to buy adults ...for non nefarious reasons and purley to love obviously ...lets say it is one of those wives from the Internet - so we even have an adult giving "consent" that OK? no moral issue with this?
Conversly a child,who cannot even offer consent,is ok because the adults who purchased it will Love it and bring it up-Clearly I am taking up a quite polarised version of this view but if you really cannot see the point I am making there is little point in digging further into what/why I think like this.

😆 TSY - she's no good for you cos she smokes! Is it OK to ask how you're doing on that front?

cinnamon_girl - I apologise if I offended you, and reading my post back it did sound a little bit rude. No harm meant but I stand by what I have written.

I simply couldn't understand geetee1972's dismal view on the youth of today and on society in general. I believe that we have a good society, far better than the likes of the Daily Express or Daily Mail would have us believe. I get really frustrated with that type of unfounded moral outrage because it is mainly a kneejerk reaction and almost always someone else's opinion recycled to make, IMO, a weak point.

I don't think that Zachary whatsisface will be in a worse situation than many other privileged children who might have the support of its parents and of the nanny staff, and I reckon that children are amazingly adaptable as long as they have love, shelter, education and emotional support. I hope that those things will all come to pass.

Junkyard - I didn't offer the opinion that it is OK to buy an adult, or a child for that matter, so I didn't feel it necessary to answer your question.

However, I think your point regarding consent of an unborn is important.

None of us consent to being born so the rule of consent must apply to all births whether money changes hands or not, so surely the real issue is what happens after birth. If the child is loved, nurtured, fed, sheltered does it matter on what 'moral' wave it rode into the world on?

I have no moral issues with internet brides as long as the marriage is one built on a foundation of love and support and that both people are under no duress to marry.

Naranjada - no, it's OK thanks! I wasn't offended cos I always wear a thick skin on here. 🙂

Fundamentally we may have a good society but there is a fairly large proportion that are devoid of any personal responsibility. The word 'shame' doesn't figure these days so these people will continue with their selfish behaviour/procreating profusely etc etc. I may be completely wrong here but doesn't geetee work in education?

Referring to certain children as 'privileged'? Not in my book, the love and warmth of your immediate family is paramount.

To answer the title of this thread; surely a 12lb cock?

c_g - good, and you are so right about love and warmth, I understand about that bit fully.

Most people say that modern life is not as good as life in, say, the 50s. There's less moral fibre nowadays, less accountability, less shame and I would probably agree with that from what I have read and seen, but what I don't understand is what has caused the change?

Hora - incorrigible!

And I think you meant 12", or is weight the new length?

C_G - Not too good this last week, kind of knew the festive period was going to be a problem 🙁

TSY - ah, that doesn't sound good. Did you succumb, or partake in an alternative? OK, be positive here - you stopped in November was it? You could have delayed til January, for obvious reasons, but you didn't so that seems to me that you are totally committed. Well done. 🙂

Now ... did you enjoy it? Honestly? C'mon His Awesomeness - yes, you can do it. 😀

OK Naranjada - whoa, there with the fatalistic, existentialist, nihilism there bro! I think I got you a bit hot under the collar there. Which is good. We should debate things even here on a bike forum. It’s what makes us human.

Yes, everything that you cite as being a false construct is a false construct. It all a sham. None of it is real. On that basis anyone is free to do whatever they want to do. I can come over there, rape and murder your wife and children and then bind you into slavery.

That’s a pretty nasty and radical example but I choose to use that example to prove a point.

I’m a pretty well educated individual; I have an undergraduate in Anthropology and a post graduate, equivalent to an M. Phil so while I am not an ‘expert’ on specific issues, I believe I have earned the right to hold a reasonably well informed opinion.

To clarify, I don’t read the ‘red tops’ although I am aware that there is a moral outrage that generally pervades a number of them. Also, my view is one of balance; I think in general the world is a much better place and I was very clear about that in my post. But there are good things and there are bad things and all I did was highlight the bad things.

Whatever your political persuasion, you can’t argue with what is happening; the issues I raised are a matter of record. What is open for debate is how you choose to interpret the world around you and that’s where we differ.

I think that what Elton and Furnish did is pathetic and morally wrong because it reduces the creation of a human life to financial transaction. Human beings are not false constructs; our psyche is not a false construct; ego is not a false construct; our need for food and shelter, to feel safe and protected from harm are not false constructs.

These human needs are what give rise to the false constructs you cite because they fulfil those needs in us.

Most people are terribly insecure (one of the reasons for there being so much intolerance in the world) and that is a very real experience. It’s degrading to the human condition and the human experience to realise that you exist because someone ‘paid’ for you to exist.

Now here’s the good part. I’ll give you the counter argument to that: You exist because someone ‘paid’ for you to exist rather than enacted your existence because of love.

I’ve reflected a lot on this thread and in some ways I’ve changed my views.

I think ‘The Pilot’s’ view is the one that I would now subscribe to; that a child needs at least to be connected to both a mother and their father as far as is possible and that no one should allow such an exclusion.

geetee - firstly apologies as I have done you a disservice by thinking you were in education. 😳

That was a very thought-provoking reply from you. It's probably a good job that we will never know the in's and out's of Elton John's arrangement.

TSY is like the guy who tries to break up the pub fight.... <come on bud, it's not worth it>....... lets go somewhere else...

so does itt matter with the bought "wife" if I treat her well afterwards just like with kids? You are refusing to answer as you want to apply a different rule to each situation- unless you are ok with people trafficing /slavery which I very much doubt you are. Take that one as rhetorical 😉
PS all life is change every generation thinks that the next one is worse than them because it is different.
For example attitudes towards homosexuality have varied from being widely practicised - Alexander had male lovers for example, to villified/illegal to tolerated like now. Forty years ago it was crime as this view changed to legal, to open, to civil partnership I am sure that many if previous generation thought it was worse. I am not sure it is worse just different. Change is inevitable except in the human psyche.

Thanks emma, on here I'm a lover not a fighter, however out there... 😯

C_G it was a substitute, or it was the thing that ciggies substituted in the first place. I'm totally comitted again. I'll set the target of no smoking until next winter solstice, and by that point can't imagine I'll want to renege on the healthy lifestyle.

I wonder what this does to evolution?

Is this the start of a future where humans can only breed and reproduce with medical intervention?

All those children born via IVF - some will be carrying genes that mean they in turn will require IVF to reproduce. Now EJ is producing a child using a surrogate mother and presumably some kind of IVF process. Will this child have the same need? Others like it?

So we'll end up with a humanity which cannot breed except with the help of doctors. What a gift for unscrupulous governments. Where does it end? Or am I just being paranoid?

TSY - you're just full of bad habits aren't you? 😉

OK, take control, you're in charge. You were doing so well and the addiction of nicotine will diminish. Have your tastebuds appreciated this? How about your sense of smell?

You [b]can[/b] do it!

All those children born via IVF - some will be carrying genes that mean they in turn will require IVF to reproduce

Lol, thanks C_G. I have a rediculously addictive personality, who'd've thought?

I've just got to go back through the whole 1 hour, 2 hour, 2 days thing. It's a habitual addiction more than an addiction to nicotine itself. Now I can occupy myself with making irreverent or irrelevant comments on here I'm sure I'll be fine!

Interesting tangent you're going off on there TSY & C_G ~ should smokers be allowed to adopt? 😯

{mods - Is it late enough for me to post a video of Elton John off of Bo Selecta? It was broadcast on Ch4 originally but some might find it offensive?}

TSY - you've done it once now do it again. Now ... I read the article in the latest mag about Trans Provence - WOW 😯 You must go for it and, as special dispensation/reward for stopping smoking, you get to buy a new bike. 8)

And, no, we really don't want any offensive stuff on here. 🙄

psling - hmmmm, difficult one. What do you think? And are you a smoker?

psling - hmmmm, difficult one. What do you think? And are you a smoker?

Why is it 'a difficult one'?

if you smoke you cannot adopt a child under 5 years of age

Ex smoker. Interestingly enough I gave up when my 2nd daughter arrived nearly 24 years ago. Given how much of an issue smoking in the presence of children (and adults for that matter) is these days I wouldn't be surprised if it is on the list of questions for potential adopters.

With regard to the whole adoption/surrogacy thing the rules/laws are created by groups of people that have to take into account their own judgements which will affect the lives of other people. We can all agree that children have to be protected from certain things eg potential paedofilia, history of violence, etc., but other things are based on moral or idealogical opinion, hence some of the opinions expressed on here. Some people will always disagree with some of the decisions made; as long as that disagreement is expressed in an inoffensive way then it is good to express opinion. IMO 😉

if you smoke you cannot adopt a child under 5 years of age

What? Seriously? For real??? 😯

Why is it 'a difficult one'?

Possibly because being a smoker is potentially harmful to a child but you could be a suitable and loving 'parent' in all other ways?

if you smoke you cannot adopt a child under 5 years of age

I wonder on what criteria an arbitrary age of 5 years was chosen. I mean, if it is deemed to be unsuitable for a child of 4 years to be adopted by a smoker then does it become suitable for a child of 5 years? Interesting one? [even 'difficult one' 😉 ]

yes but it could be a guidline/best practice or law not sure which tbh

Is there not a demand v's supply element?

With more people wanting to adopt a new born, than are available for adoption, they can place a more stringent criteria on applicants?

With more people wanting to adopt a new born, than are available for adoption, they can place a more stringent criteria on applicants?

Unless they are incredibly rich or famous in which case they can 'buy' a baby? 8)

*touches nose with one hand, points at psling with the other*

Possibly because being a smoker is potentially harmful to a child but you could be a suitable and loving 'parent' in all other ways?

So, you can drive them around in a car, which 'potentially' could end up in a fatal accident, you can drink, which could 'potentially' lead to mistakes/errors of judgement, etc etc etc, but you can't have a crafty puff? What if you don't smoke inside when kids are there? My parents smoked in the house when I was a nipper, and I grew up perfectly healthy. Bloody Nanny State deciding 'What's Best' for people all the bloody time.

Ridiculous.

I find it fascinating how some folk seem to think their values somehow trump others, without really having any decent or fully valid reasons why.

Anyway Twundred but I'm to upset now to enjoy it. 😥

Why do you want 200? 201 means I'm at the top of this page^^

You can't adopt if you're a smoker?

http://www.dhsspsni.gov.uk/adoption_domestic_faqs

[b]I smoke, will I be able to adopt?[/b]
<snip>
However, the use of criteria whose application is in reality to ban people who smoke from adopting is not appropriate.

Don't care. Too upset.

You're not upset, just flouncing.

I find it fascinating how some folk seem to think their values somehow trump others, without really having any decent or fully valid reasons why.

I see what you've done there 🙄 😆

I had to stop smoking as part of the adoption process, kept it up for about six months then like an idiot started again. I understand, to a degree, where social services are coming from, but at the time I was less than happy with the situation, insofar as I never smoked in the house, and would never dream of smoking in front of the kids, yet was still made to feel like an irresponsible baby murdering nazi. Anyway, five years later, I'm still smoking, and to be honest, with a five year old and a seven year old running amok out of their heads on too much chocolate and an overdose of doctor who action figures, it's a wonder I'm not on crack. 😀

Mr Mitch you want to get yourself to one of Phil's Sexy Parties!

If I can find a tramp or someone even less suitable to look after the boys, I'm there!

Which begs the question, does someone who allows their children to eat chocolate and have Dr Who inaction figures be allowed to adopt... 😈

Bring 'em along, free crack for all... 8)

barnsleymitch - Member
I had to stop smoking as part of my adoption process, kept it up for about six months then like an idiot started again. I understand, to a degree, where social services are coming from, but at the time I was less than happy with the situation, insofar as I never smoked in the house, and would never dream of smoking in front of the adults, yet was still made to feel like an irresponsible roadie murdering nazi. Anyway, five years later, I'm still smoking, and to be honest, with a thirty five year old and a thirty seven year old running amok out of their heads on too much xtr and an overdose of doctor who action figures, it's a wonder I'm not on crack.

Posted 10 hours ago #

There fixed it for you 😀

My parents smoked in the house when I was a nipper, and I grew up perfectly healthy

Personally I dont see how smoking actually affects your ability to parent well [ex smoker] and given the outcomes of LAC [ looked after children] almost nothing could be worse than what the state provides - lowest exam results, highest crime rates, suicides - some trully tragic outcomes for LAC statistically.

Couldnt agree more junkyard. I'm not trying to say that smoking is a healthy option, and as I already stated, I have never smoked in front of my kids (or anyone elses, for that matter), but compared to the backgrounds some of the kids are from, having the occasional ciggie is pretty insignificant in comparison.

If I can find a tramp or someone even less suitable to look after the boys

Local priest?

Indeed there is. The more I learn of you on here BM the greater the respect I have for you.
Woppit do you never tire of religous digs? Really rather boring now - oh yes thanks for the pithy insulting reply to this as well it was dull as well.

I'd thought about that mr woppit, just need to buy a can of 'priest be gone' spray and were all sorted...

Science to the rescue! 😆

Edit: 63 is far too old to be a father.

No it's not. It may not be your choice but don't seek to force that on other people. We have family experience of this and it's working just fine (being a fit sexagenarian is going to be a better father than a fat badly fed twenty-something).

Statistically elton will live to see him turn 10 the 20 something may see great grandchildren

The fat, badly fed twenty something may well live to see great grandchildren, what input will he have to his children's lives though. Physical activity is a large part of the under 10 years in children which the un-fit will struggle with.
With the right children the 20 something may even see great great grandchildren, with pregnancy possible for modern 12 year olds 🙄

Messiah on a singlespeed, is this still going?!

63 is far too old to be a father.

Rod Stewart's 65 and got kid number 8 on the way, following his third marriage and numerous relationships. I'd say that should ring more warning bells than Elton's situation, yet strangely I can't find the thread on that...

I'd say that should ring more warning bells

Why?

ask your mother , he'll know

mr potatohead - Member
ask your mother , he'll know

Unfortunately I can't as she's dead (my mother was female, although I can't speak for your own experience, of course).

However, I do find that the argument that Elton's child (and Rodney the Modney's children) will somehow have their lives blighted because of the likely outcome being that their fathers will die early on in their children's lives, compared to the norm, to be specious in the extreme.

Financial security is the best foundation for a good start in life and the best insurance for a secure life to proceed.

Many have had their lives as children damaged, often beyond repair, by abusive and/or poverty-stricken parents who nevertheless die when their children reach middle-age or beyond.

The only reason this thread was started (and subsequently supported by some) is homophobia, plain and simple.

The only reason this thread was started (and subsequently supported by some) is homophobia, plain and simple.

Absolute tosh Mr Woppit.

Whoppit you are a complete hypocrite! If you take the sentence you wrote above:

If I can find a tramp or someone even less suitable to look after the boys

Local priest?

:and substitue the word 'priest' for something else like 'Muslim', 'homosexual', 'black person', 'woman', 'disabled person' etc. I'm pretty sure you'd not only get flamed but you'd get lynched. And I would be leading the mob.

So why is it OK to be so prejudice against priests? Before you start calling others, take a look at yourself first.

Financial security is the best foundation for a good start in life and the best insurance for a secure life to proceed.

Yes, as some fab four once said, "Money can buy you love"

oh.... hold on..

So why is it OK to be so prejudice against priests? Before you start calling others, take a look at yourself first.

This is true. I actually know a few priests. In fact my aunt is one. And while I don't necessarily agree with all their religious views, I also don't see why they should be insulted in such a fashion. In fact, seeing as all those people I know are parents, I'd say they were probably very suitable for looking after children.

Silly Woppit. 🙄

Ooh. I seem to have touched a nerve.

and substitue the word 'priest' for something else like 'Muslim', 'homosexual', 'black person', 'woman', 'disabled person' etc. I'm pretty sure you'd not only get flamed but you'd get lynched. And I would be leading the mob.

...but not for "priest". So I'm safe from the wrath of the geetee-led mob yet awhile. Phew.

Actually, I was referring to those newsworthy of late and ordained, who are evidently paedophiles, as being more unsuitable than tramps (as jocularly posted by barnsleymitch). It was an aside, and nothing to do with gay people, who are of course, no more automatically paedophiliac than heterosexuals, so I don't QUITE know what your objection is.

I took a look at myself. I'm a handsome brute. 8)

Actually, I was referring to those newsworthy of late and ordained, who are evidently paedophiles

Then why didn't you say 'paedophile priests' instead ?

Ooh. I seem to have touched a nerve.

Yeah a little. I consider myself an aetheist (although I was brought up Catholic but that's a whole other story. Really) but I also try really hard not to be prejudice against anyone without really good cause (so I'd say it was OK to be prejudice against a facist gay hating, woman bashing, muslim mudering, child felching SOB for example).

I am all for a more secular society, but I don't think it should be at the expense of religious freedom. Nor should religious freedom come at the expense of tolerance of diversity. I think that the price of equality is that you will create an environment in which you have to allow certain groups the right to be prejudice based on (ill informed or otherwise) beliefs. It's like the price of civil liberties being that suicide bombers will have a greater chance of succeeding.

Actually, I was referring to those newsworthy of late and ordained, who are evidently paedophiles,

I know you were. That's the point; you didn't differentiate so your statement was based on the assumption that all priests are peodophiles.

...nothing to do with gay people, who are of course, no more automatically paedophiliac than heterosexuals, so I don't QUITE know what your objection is.

Precisely, but by not differentiating you lump all priests together as being paedophilles.

Now i've met you Whoppit and you seemed like a very decent chap to me (as well as a handome brute!) so I'll put this one down to a misunderstanding, but at the same time, hard as it is to do, you might reflect on whether you are prejudice against religious people, in particular Christians. Just a thought.

geetee1972 - thanks for your reply, it really helped. BTW I'm not being sarcastic. I did get a little bit wound up ...I had too much time on my hands yesterday.

And as for your statement "I’ve reflected a lot on this thread and in some ways I’ve changed my views" I too have had a similar experience, thanks to the contributions from you and others.

So, for 2011 it's out with the nihilism and existential angst (the latter should have been exorcised a while ago ...late teens I guess, but I'm heading for mid 40s FFS!) and in with a new era of positivity, acceptance and more riding of bike.

Hugs all round.

The world really is a good place! 😀

[url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/dec/30/elton-john-homophobia-baby-lifestyle ]Someone else's view[/url], I broadly agree with, apart from the homophobia dying bit because it's dancing across most of this thread.
When stripped down to it's components parts though some people are on the whole objecting because it's Elton and David and they are gay and they don't like that. note *some.
It starts with Rightplacerighttime saying "father"; that's it right there, also being a shopaholic is one of the key indicators of bad parenthood? You live you learn.
There are a lot of kids who end up in the world as unplanned unwanted results of unprotected poor decisions, born to decision makers who don't get to be quizzed about their qualifications as life makers.
Some kids grow up with single parents, (however this happens, walkouts, death, divorce, ...) some good, some not and some not ideal (this as it turns out isn't exclusive to single parents) they might not all grow into the best people in the world but the idea that kids need a mother and a father is not a coverall. Some families with a mother and a father are not naturing hotbeds of small people incubators. As it goes we don't know the particulars of their arrangement.
However you want to paint it though making babies is not some special love ritual to create life, for some it's a drunken Christmas party, a broken condom and a baby in August.
There is debate though somewhere in there, but I think we're mostly blinkered by our own opinions and an unyielding need to be right based on our experiences and beliefs.
Geetee I get you, you have a very valid point but I disagree fundamentally because I don't think they are buying a baby (but you do) nor do I think of making babies as a sanctified act, because it mostly never is, but this comes down to experiences and beliefs.
Can I also be a handsome brute?

Can I also be a handsome brute?

Well you can at least be an elloquent one on the basis of the evidence thus far. 😀

How handsome [i]is[/i] Whoppit?

I've never met him, but now I'm intrigued, although I'm not gay or owt...

Oh no, messed it up again...

I once saw a picture of mr woppit. He's certainly right about the 'brute' part, if nothing else.

It wasn't nice, was it Mitch? 🙁

I wanted to say what Ether so eloquently has, but sadly I am too angry and stupid to put such common sense and objective thought into words.

I've lost a lot of weight since then. 😕 (And grown a beard, which disguises the wattles. 😯

I suppose, to be strictly accurate, I [i]should[/i] have said "paedophile priest", but I kind of assumed that it would be obvious as to what I was referring, and the inclusion of the descriptive would have lessened the comedic impact of the statement.

I had in mind the Hitch's defence of his friend Stephen Fry against the anti-gay attacks of Anne Widdecombe and the Bishop of Uganda when he said: "I am perfectly happy for my good friend Stephen to babysit my children, but if a Catholic Priest in full regalia turned up to do it, first I'd call a cab, then I'd call the police".

I note that, whilst being hugely admiring of Catholic barnsley's "soft answer that turneth away wrath" tactic, he seemed to agree with me...