MegaSack DRAW - This year's winner is user - rgwb
We will be in touch
Anyone care to debate the ins and outs of same sex parenting?
Tom Daley and his partner announced today that they are expecting by showing a baby scan photo on Twitter. Now I know enough about biology to know that its not their scan so to speak. I wonder who the father is? Who the biological mother is? Would the child have a right to find out who its mother was at a later date? Etc etc.
*sits back and opens biscuits*
<i></i>No to the debate.
A simple congratulations will do.
No to the debate.
A simple congratulations will do.
no need to comment then.
It's Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.
I'm really not comfortable with the whole apparent 'baby-to-order' thing that such an announcement represents.
Why not just adopt a child in genuine need of a loving home?
[Checks calendar]
No it is still 2018, I didn't magically travel back into more ignorant times
I’m really not comfortable with the whole apparent ‘baby-to-order’ thing that such an announcement represents.
Why not just adopt a child in genuine need of a loving home?
the news story I read was on the BBC, it was seriously lacking any detail (maybe for legal or other reasons) but didn't state what the situation of the natural mother was.
Live your own life… let others live theirs.
I'll join the debate.
No problem with same sex parents, why not? Lack of role models? Let's face it, there's plenty of "traditional" male / female partnerships making a right royal pigs ear of bringing up their children. As far as I can see there is no real argument against it.
I suspect something to do with the desire for genetic legacy.
I too see little benefit in producing another baby in a same sex marriage, adoption IMO would be a fair step to take.
As for their commitment to each other I see no reason to bring gender into the conversation.
Tunnocks Wafers and a Double Espresso, thanks.
I'm not sure about it, like saxonrider says its the whole baby to order thing. I have no doubt that two men are quite capapble of raising a child, but I also have a feeling of "just because you can, doesn't mean you should"
"I’m really not comfortable with the whole apparent ‘baby-to-order’ thing that such an announcement represents. Why not just adopt a child in genuine need of a loving home?"
You could apply that logic to any couple wishing to breed if you wanted.
I also have a feeling of “just because you can, doesn’t mean you should”
Applies to lots of "conventional" parents too.
I hope they're good parents, and that the kid(s) and they have a good life. Couldn't care less beyond that.
Applies to lots of “conventional” parents too.
I hope they’re good parents, and that the kid(s) and they have a good life. Couldn’t care less beyond that.
Do you think those kids would have a right to a relationship with the woman who carried them for nine months and gave birth to them?
I also have a feeling of “just because you can, doesn’t mean you should”
Their decision doesn't affect your life in any way at all. Why should you remotely care.
As the details haven't been made clear (as far as I am aware anyway – I haven't seen anything detailing the conception method) he could quite easily be the daddy anyway. Afford them the same 'column inches' any other couple of a similar public profile would get when announcing a baby. No more, no less. For example, a traditionally normal male/female couple might not be able to conceive so go the surrogate route - would that make them any less the mummy and daddy to the child?
Loving married couple have baby...In other news; dog barks.
This and the Golliwog thread all in one day!! We really are being spoilt 🤗 who said the forum was dying?
It’s Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.
I think you'll find it's Tom and Dustin
Do you think those kids would have a right to a relationship with the woman who carried them for nine months and gave birth to them?
Not unlike normal adoption where the Mother steps away after the birth? I'd say it would/could become an issue for the Mother in later life, as for the child I would imagine having two "parents" loving and living happy environment wouldn't care much .. until later in life ..
Tough one.
This and the Golliwog thread all in one day!! We really are being spoilt who said the forum was dying?
The Golliwog thread started yesterday. Therefore, the forum is still dying.
Their decision doesn’t affect your life in any way at all. Why should you remotely care.
No it doesn't, but it is an interesting moral debate of modern times.
Not unlike normal adoption where the Mother steps away after the birth? I’d say it would/could become an issue for the Mother in later life, as for the child I would imagine having two “parents” loving and living happy environment wouldn’t care much .. until later in life ..
Depends on the situation here really, but there are few details in the news (which I am not in any way suggesting is wrong). I guess most adoption takes place because the biological mother cant look after the child for one reason or another. The assumption here (and it is a big assumption) is that the mother is having a child purely for the reason of giving it away.
You haven't seen the documentary 'junior' then? starring Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Depends on the situation here really, but there are few details in the news (which I am not in any way suggesting is wrong). I guess most adoption takes place because the biological mother cant look after the child for one reason or another. The assumption here (and it is a big assumption) is that the mother is having a child purely for the reason of giving it away.
Unless you're a paid up Catholic and every sperm is sacred then what does it matter to you, it's her/their decision.
Good luck to them, no objections from me (not that it even matters), but the BBC article says they are having a baby. No, they are getting a baby.
The surrogate is giving birth to a child that she knows will be going to a loving couple that are in a position to give that child every opportunity in life. She's doing an exceptionally good thing.
I'm failing to see any negatives to this.
I'm pleased for them, but I wish Roy and Lexi had just decided to have a child of their own.....
The surrogate is giving birth to a child that she knows will be going to a loving couple that are in a position to give that child every opportunity in life. She’s doing an exceptionally good thing.
I’m failing to see any negatives to this.
But that child is biologically hers. If it was me I would want to know who my mother was, where I came from, what made me, me. etc.
But that child is biologically hers. If it was me I would want to know who my mother was, where I came from, what made me, me. etc.
Have you ever sat your parents down and asked them explicitly whether you're adopted?
Or on ballance are you quite accepting having grown up with them that they're your parents?
"But that child is biologically hers. If it was me I would want to know who my mother was, where I came from, what made me, me. etc."
I know quite a few families with adopted children. Some do want to know the above, some don't. In most cases the adopted children view their parents as just that, their parents. The biological component is just a small part of it. A parent will love, nurture and be there for their children unconditionally be that as a biological parent or an adoptive one. There are plenty biological parents who are shithouses totally undeserving of the gift of children.
Question for the OP. Would you be as questioning if the prospective parents were the traditional male / female or is it the same sex element that is making you feel uncomfortable?
It’s Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve
One of those piss poor expressions that just show how limited the imagination of bigoted people is.
Have you ever sat your parents down and asked them explicitly whether you’re adopted?
Or on ballance are you quite accepting having grown up with them that they’re your parents?
Can you really not see the difference? This child will not have to ask, he/she will know.
I'd say he's too young. Get out and live a bit more.
Can you really not see the difference? This child will not have to ask, he/she will know.
I can see the difference, doesn't matter though.
1 in 50 kids in the UK isn't the Dad's, so if we're going to make it an "us and them" issue, our house is hardly in order!
This is brilliant, one day on STW and we've travelled back to racists, bigots and pre-tech revolutionary time.
I'm going to write a letter of complaint to Mark with my quill and parchment to see if I can get the antagonists hung drawn and quartered sorry I mean moderated.
But that child is biologically hers. If it was me I would want to know who my mother was, where I came from, what made me, me. etc.
Tom's child might or might not want to know more, they may want a relationship with the surrogate, which for all we know might be cool with Tom and his husband. How and at what age that's dealt with will be for the parents to decide. Which would be the same as any heterosexual couple that used a surrogate except there's no chance of any misunderstanding as the questions will likely come up as soon as the child is old enough to understand where babies come from.
I would expect that these questions will have been considered very carefully by Tom, Mr Tom and the surrogate. It's not as if the baby is the result of an ill considered drunken fumble.
[edit]
Can you really not see the difference? This child will not have to ask, he/she will know.
I sort of touched in this above and I can see the difference but I think that it can be viewed as a positive, the child will ask questions and they will need to be told the truth in a way that's age appropriate. There's no room for white lies which means there's less room for the child to grow up thinking one thing only to find out later in life that it wasn't the case and that he or she had been deceived even if that deception was with a kind heart and the best of intentions.
Absolutely no problem with Tom and Dustin having a child together. Good luck to them.
This happens every day for same sex couples with no issues it's just that this is publically announced.
BTW Non paternity in the UK is 9% not 1:50.
CFor example, a traditionally normal male/female couple might not be able to conceive so go the surrogate route – would that make them any less the mummy and daddy to the child"
Why doesn't that fruitless couple adopt?
As said above, plenty of kids out there is need of a stable home.
"The assumption here (and it is a big assumption) is that the mother is having a child purely for the reason of giving it away."
Or for financial gain?
"But that child is biologically hers."
This is where there could be issues 10 years later when the child starts to question its origin.
plenty of kids out there is need of a stable home
baby Jesus for a start.
Good luck to Mr Daley imo.
We are good friends* with a same sex couple who have a child. They split up recently and the biological parent attempted to block access to the other, non- biological parent.
Very sad& lengthy situation which thankfully the courts rectified.ie shared access.
*now with only one of the parents after our court testimony.:-(
And nico’s Adam and Eve comment is Pish!
Why doesn’t that fruitless couple adopt?
But that is another question for another thread. This thread isn't about the rights and wrongs of surrogacy, it's the OPs discomfort with same sex parents to a child. And Tom and his husband could have adopted in the same way they could have chosen surrogacy. But they didn't. Same way we chose to go through expensive IVF rather than surrogacy or adoption.
I find the use of surrogates a bit, well fraught with ethical problems. Especially if money involved..same no matter what the gender of parents. I have some friends who are a male couple with kids and two ladies with adopted kids. All are great parents.
BTW Non paternity in the UK is 9% not 1:50.
Sauce*?
*another man's baby gravy
This study found it was 1in50 and looking back at the genome it seemed to be fairly consistent going back in time (i.e. infidelity isn't a new thing, or at least it's rate of increase is inline with that of successful contraception!)
Have I wandered into the Daily Mail comments by mistake?
My wife and I wanted to start a family about 24 years ago,we had a boy who is much loved.When we decided to have another child my wife had several miscarriages,so we had a long discussion about fertility treatment vs adoption and decided to adopt.Our second child ,who we adopted at 23 months,died in an RTA just before he was 3,after a very intense and fulfilling year,,and about 2 years later we adopted a girl,just before her first birthday.She is much loved,and has a life history book,explaining why she was adopted,and why she came to us.She is now 15 and a proper little madam,and very much loved.She knows why she was adopted,and at some time may go in search of her birth mother,but has no doubts about who mum and dad are.I hope Tom and his partner have adopted,but would understand if they went for surrogacy, as long as they care for and cherish the child then they should be ok.The same sex relationship is irrelevant to the the child,and should be to the rest of us.
From the BBC;
They have not revealed any more details about the pregnancy, including whether or not a surrogate is involved.
If a surrogate isn't involved I think medical science needs to know.
Ah the Telegraph that peer reviewed journal. Also non-paternity can obviously be know and unknown. Here technically (although not legally) between the child - Tom and Dustin there will be non-paternity.
Plenty of papers out there reporting on non-paternity rates. eg.
Pedigree and genotyping quality analyses of over 10,000 DNA samples from the Generation Scotland: Scottish Family Health Study. Kerr et al. BMC Medical Genetics. 2013.
Not sure if I'm reading this right but from that article:
"A total of 925 parent-child trios were assessed for transmission of the SNP markers, with 16 trios indicating evidence of inconsistency in the recorded pedigrees."
Is 1.7% (and without going into the statistical significance of that sample, let's say it's the same as the 2% quoted in the other).
Three of them were the mum (presumably adopted but they didn't tell the researchers? Or an actual mix up!).
It does acknowledge that the sample was self selecting though, mum's may not have volunteered if they knew it wasn't the dad's.
Ah the Telegraph that peer reviewed journal.
Larmuseau, Maarten H.D. et al.Cuckolded Fathers Rare in Human Populations, Trends in Ecology & Evolution , Volume 31 , Issue 5 , 327 - 329
I can't imagine why anyone would go to this length to have a baby...horrid things...but good luck to them same as any couple who do have paternal feelings and can't conceive alone.
Good luck to them. Him and his husband seem like good guys.
But that child is biologically hers. If it was me I would want to know who my mother was, where I came from, what made me, me. etc.
Did I miss the bit where they said the mother's identity would be kept secret from the child?
Did bikerbouy leave out and apostrophe or an 'S' ? : "Tunnocks Wafers and a Double Espresso" More than one Tunnock wafer with an expresso (double or otherwise) is truly an antisocial faux pas.
Good luck to them.
in other news, are the remnants of UKIP logging in here by mistake?
There’s too much about the story that hasn’t been disclosed to really comment but to answer why anyone should care, well you could say the same thing about any challenging issue in society – why should I care about people who are racist? It doesn’t affect me. Why should I care about an aid worker who sleeps with prostitutes? It doesn’t affect me.
Saying it doesn’t affect you and therefore you have no right to comment, ask, debate etc is at best pathetic and at worst veiled bigotry.
Besides the happy couple decided to publically announce it to the world in a way that demands we debate it. That makes it a public news story and since it’s an important issue, we should debate. Asking the question as the OP did does NOT make him a bigot of any kind. The only bigots on this thread are the ones accusing him or her of that without first thinking more carefully about the intent of the question and presuming to believe it;s motivated by something other than genuine interest; when you presuppose to know something about another person without really knowing it, that right there is bigotry and there are a lot of people on here guilty of that (which by the way also makes you hypocrites).
Speaking as a father an atheist and a bisexual man, I am however thrilled by the idea that we are now tolerant enough as a society to know that your sexual preference for men and/or women is irrelevant to your ability to be a good parent. But I am also utterly disappointed that we also seem to be classing our biological origin and the notion of mother and father as similarly irrelevant. It’s not; it’s all we have, it’s who we are and you only have to talk to people who were adopted to see that many of them struggle with the notion that they were given up or wonder who their ‘real’ i.e. their biological parents are/were. That search for identity is hard wired into us and the parental instinct to nurture and care for our own off spring, is kind of important evolutionarily speaking. Adoption cases are both a triumph and a tragedy of society just as are good examples and bad examples of parenting.
If someone contracts someone to be nothing more than a surrogate then that’s deeply troubling for me and for a lot of other people and that doesn’t make us bigots, that just makes us human. A lot of people also feel troubled by the idea of egg or sperm donation as is clearly evidenced by the fact that sperm donation has, if you pardon the pun, dried up since we made it a legal right for a child to know who their biological father is.
If the biological mother is going to be involved then that sounds to me like a fabulous outcome all round; they get three great parents not just two and that has to be a good thing. If however you’re going to deliberately engineer a child so that one of those two parents is specifically excluded, then I personally think that’s very wrong. Maybe we allow it in society but that doesn’t mean that people aren’t going to judge you by your actions.
This thread isn’t about the rights and wrongs of surrogacy, it’s the OPs discomfort with same sex parents to a child.
I suggest you go back and re read my op.
Well said, geetee...
If someone contracts someone to be nothing more than a surrogate then that’s deeply troubling for me and for a lot of other people and that doesn’t make us bigots, that just makes us human.
And it makes some of you human bigots.
tonyg2003BTW Non paternity in the UK is 9% not 1:50.
that figure sounds a bit high, where's it from?
Did bikerbouy leave out and apostrophe or an ‘S’ ? : “Tunnocks Wafers and a Double Espresso” More than one Tunnock wafer with an expresso (double or otherwise) is truly an antisocial faux pas.
I had two Tunnocks Wafers and one espresso (not a double) whilst sitting back and reading some of the comments on here..
I think some people believe we live in the 1950's... or they're just used to looking backwards.
And it makes some of you human bigots
How so?
i previously heard the figure for non paternity was 25% which sounds crazy. It’s prevalence doesn’t make it right of course. It’s deeply wrong.
Think the term bigot is being bandied about far to readily. It has to still be ok to have a different opinion without being challenged on it or encouraging debate. Different opinion doesn't necessarily mean intolerant.
My eldest, (& gay) son & his partner have just adopted a rescue greyhound (dog, not bus)
Is that the same?
(there's probably a new word to be used for 'gay' I suppose but I can't keep up, unless 'homosexual' is still ok)
My eldest, (& gay) son & his partner have just adopted a rescue greyhound (dog, not bus)
Is that the same?
Its now a "Gayhound"
As for the new baby, have met a lot of straight couples and some are suitable for children, some should never ever be allowed to have had a baby or babies.
As fior gay or lesbian das or mums, they seem to be affluent, well spoken, well educated and have a positive outlook on life, and willing to help everyone, something that is important to all new born babies and children till they reach adulthood
I think it's great news! Even moreso that it gets up the nose of the OP and the rest of the Stasi.:)
I think it’s great news! Even moreso that it gets up the nose of the OP and the rest of the Stasi.:)
Ah so you're one of those bigots who presupposes to know what is in the OP's mind?
Non paternity 9%? Seems too high. Source?
2% according to the Telegraph.
Ah so you’re one of those bigots who presupposes to know what is in the OP’s mind?
i like to consider it more an educated guess based on my weary experience of the internet.
start of a contentious subject, fail to state your position but leave enough abiguity in there that it could go either way depending on the mood of the forum. It’s hardly new
Being a dad isn't a biological function
"MrPottatoHead
Think the term bigot is being bandied about far to readily. It has to still be ok to have a different opinion without being challenged on it or encouraging debate. Different opinion doesn’t necessarily mean intolerant."
Honestly it seems to be a trigger word, like "ignorant", where people who express views that are by definition bigoted, can't stand to be called bigoted. I think there's a disconnect, people see "bigoted" as being a <bad> opinion and obviously their opinions aren't bad.
Cambridge:
"a person who has strong, unreasonable beliefs and who does not like other people who have different beliefs or a different way of life"
While there may be a few suspect comments in this thread i dont believe I as the op have said anything that can be classed as bigoted. I have only raised an moral and ethical question to the forum for debate. Not once have i said anything derogatory against lgbt s or any other group. The only personal view i have expressed was to question surrogacy.
This and the Golliwog thread all in one day!! We really are being spoilt 🤗 who said the forum was dying?
Yes, it does seem to still have its quota of bigoted ****s.
Congrats to Tom and his partner.
OP - how does this affect you?
Think the term bigot is being bandied about far to readily
Perhaps. Perhaps not.
Though if anyone feels it's being bandied in their direction a bit too much then maybe evaluate why that might be. Same goes or racist / xenophobe / sexist.
Good for the two of them; I hope they stay together in a close and loving relationship and are fully supportive of the child.
As for which of them fertilised the egg - and is, therefore, in strict biological terms the father - who cares.
I’d say he’s too young. Get out and live a bit more.
I agree, yes, Tom Daley has definitely lead a sheltered and unfulfilling life, and we're definitely in a position to tell him when he is ready to have children.
Live and let live. Good luck to them, congratulations, etc.
While there may be a few suspect comments in this thread i dont believe I as the op have said anything that can be classed as bigoted. I have only raised an moral and ethical question to the forum for debate. Not once have i said anything derogatory against lgbt s or any other group. The only personal view i have expressed was to question surrogacy.
here’s a top tip, if you’re going to kick off a subject like this why not state your position or lack of one clearly rather than making a vague statement with the insinuation that you’re not ok with it? You obviously felt strongly enough about it to start a conversation, and in the absence of any positive comment it’s ok for us to assume you have a problem with them, right?
we also seem to be classing our biological origin and the notion of mother and father as similarly irrelevant. It’s not; it’s all we have, it’s who we are and you only have to talk to people who were adopted to see that many of them struggle with the notion that they were given up or wonder who their ‘real’ i.e. their biological parents are/were. That search for identity is hard wired into us and the parental instinct to nurture and care for our own off spring, is kind of important evolutionarily speaking
Is this all just made up? Do you actually go around talking to adopted people about this? Seems a strange thing to do? Do you have the same discussions with people who are not adopted? And all that stuff about 'hard wiring' what do you actually mean?
By viewing it as morally or ethically questionable, you have already outed yourselfI have only raised an moral and ethical question to the forum for debate.
As geetee says.
Tom and his husband were interviewed at the American Football match they had in London a few months ago. It's amazing the progress that has been made to attitudes that the most shocking thing about the interview was that Tom and his husband supported different teams.
Good luck to them.