No no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no

[shaunbhoy]

So what about the principle, rather than this specific case

Well if we are going to continue to find it socially acceptable for hordes of little slappers from sink estates to propagate like there is no tomorrow, yet with no obvious means of supporting these little bastards, where can we really draw some sort of moral line in the sand?
Baby P lived in a "normal" environment, and ticked all the sexually acceptable boxes, if you believe some on here.
I don't imagine that anyone is suggesting this is a trend that should become compulsory, and in the greater scheme of things we are only talking about a tiny percentage of children falling into this category.
Maybe we should try going to some third world orphanages and asking for a show of hands for those who would be willing to give up their current existence to become the pampered ward of some moneyed pop star or celebrity? Then gauge our approach based on the results of that rather than on the blinkered cherrypicked definitions of assorted bible-thumping fascist god-botherers?

[EternalOptimist]

Well if we are going to continue to find it socially acceptable for hordes of little slappers from sink estates to propagate like there is no tomorrow, yet with no obvious means of supporting these little bastards, where can we really draw some sort of moral line in the sand?
Baby P lived in a "normal" environment, and ticked all the sexually acceptable boxes, if you believe some on here.
I don't imagine that anyone is suggesting this is a trend that should become compulsory, and in the greater scheme of things we are only talking about a tiny percentage of children falling into this category.
Maybe we should try going to some third world orphanages and asking for a show of hands for those who would be willing to give up their current existence to become the pampered ward of some moneyed pop star or celebrity? Then gauge our approach based on the results of that rather than on the blinkered cherrypicked definitions of assorted bible-thumping fascist god-botherers?

so what you are saying, in a roundabout way, is that because me and the missus had our kids the normal way, I should adopt a 50 yr old surrogate homo?

[norrahe]

so what you are saying, in a roundabout way, is that because me and the missus had our kids the normal way, I should adopt a 50 yr old surrogate homo?

Or that no one gets to chose their parents?

[shaunbhoy]

so what you are saying, in a roundabout way, is that because me and the missus had our kids the normal way, I should adopt a 50 yr old surrogate homo?

I would not presume to tell you how to behave, nor what path to go down regarding this slightly veiled penchant for ageing effeminate orphans. You must call it as you see it.

HTH

[d000hg]

I think gay adoption is a tough one. Gay couples are as likely to provide a loving and safe home for a child as heterosexual, but it is true that the child is likely to be teased and may feel resentful that their family is not 'normal', in the sense of the same as their friends.

Maybe, but is that all that a child needs from their parents - love and safety? No matter what anyone claims, men and women are different and I think not having a mother and a father is a bad thing. Loads of people end up OK from broken/single-parent families BUT I would still maintain they'd end up "better" (however you want to interpret that) from a loving, nurturing family with two parents who loved each other - however rare that is these days with divorce so common.

[shaunbhoy]

I would still maintain they'd end up "better" (however you want to interpret that) from a loving, nurturing family with two parents who loved each other - however rare that is these days with divorce so common.

I don't disagree, however, lofty and all as that goal is, it is entirely impractical as we are all human. It is all very well to strive for perfection, but we were never designed to be perfect. Pragmatism has to kick in at some point, and if we can't have perfection, then any pair of loving parents is not something we should be too dismissive about. Them having gasquillions of pounds in the bank ain't too shabby either for someone left weighing up their lot in life.
Being brought up by Elton and his partner would not be my optimal choice, neither would I be too chuffed about being born a Royal. However, if it happened it would certainly not be the end of the world, and as none of us gets to choose anyway, can't really see too much harm in it.

[xoggoth]

Dooooooooooooooogh is probably right for reasons I and MF mentioned earlier. However, as I also said, there is no actual proof.

Another preconception is that maybe some gay men would be rather good as mothers. We should not be imposing blanket laws limiting other people's freedoms on the basis of preconceptions, the checks on suitability of prospective adoptive parents (not sure about surrogates) are quite stringent and should reject unsuitable applicants. The time to ban or discourage gay parentage is if all the indications are that it does not work.

[d000hg]

SB: A good argument. There are two sides to it so even though I don't agree with gay adoption, I take your point that if the choice is between that and being brought up in a state-run orphans' home, things seem less black & white.

It's still weird though

[d000hg]

Another preconception is that maybe some gay men would be rather good as mothers.

By that logic wouldn't some straight men be equally good 'mothers'? i.e. sensitive, emotional, cry a lot... SY01 for instance.

[Doggy Styles]

SB: A good argument. There are two sides to it so even though I don't agree with gay adoption, I take your point that if the choice is between that and being brought up in a state-run orphans' home, things seem less black & white.

It's still weird though

As a principle maybe, but as I understand it, this child was created specifically for Elton John and David Furnish, so it would never have been brought up in any other way.