cycas Posted December 5, 2007 Report Share Posted December 5, 2007 If it were reallly a good idea to stop people breeding in case their kids got teased about their parents, we'd have to prohibit reproduction by all people with rude surnames (or surnames that could be said in a rude way), extra-fat people, extra thin people, smelly people, people with comical accents, people with bad hair, poor people, posh people, stupid people, excessively clever people, and people who might rashly force their children to learn to play the violin. Not to mention all the deeply uncool people: we can't have them breeding, with their terrible dancing, sad clothes and tendency to say embarrassing things loudly in shops! The human race would be doomed... I'm basing this purely on things my contemporaries got teased about, I'm guessing there's probably a whole exciting new range of things for kids to torment one another about nowadays. Re the CSA case, personally I think it would be fairer to chase the second mum. If I were the second mum I think I'd feel morally obliged to pay the 'fathers' bill. I'm inclined to think that being a male 'friend of the family' plus donation of spare body fluid on request is enough to constitute fatherhood... Mostly though I'm sad that this has become such a public struggle and I really really hope the poor kid is too young to understand what's going on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suzeanna Posted December 5, 2007 Report Share Posted December 5, 2007 If he is to be held responsible....what about a baby who is adopted...and then the adoptive father leaves the family home. Who does the woman go after for maintenance? her ex...who is not the child's father...or the real father who presumably didn't want it in the first place? I think once you have taken steps to have a child out of the usual parameters, then you and whoever you are intending to bring the child up with, regardless of the sex of your partner, should be solely responsible for that child. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JessandCos Posted December 5, 2007 Report Share Posted December 5, 2007 Why the third woman should be able to evade responsibility when deciding to "have" a child via an unnatural process I fail to see but perhaps what will be my most controversial thought these days is that whilst I have no problems with homosexuals or lesbians making their own choices in their own homes I don't believe that any child should be brought up in that environment, thereby encouraged to believe that it's the norm & then likely besubjected to being made the subject of "fun" / bullying as they grow up & go to school because of it - kids can be very cruel. Ian if I remember rightly you have no children of your own - is that correct ? Kids can be cruel about disabilities, looks, whether you wear glasses or not, obese, unable to swim etc etc ride a bike and be bullied for any number of reasons. The reasons why kids become bullied is because of the way they have been brought up and the way parents convey tolerance and intolerance. I work on the Southampton Gay Scene, where the norm is gay and lesbian couples with kids of varying different ages from previous hetro relationships, these kids are the most well adjusted kids, and are brought up in stable loving homes which is what kids need. It is irrelevant whether whether it is a gay or straight home. Society has changed from what is was ten even twenty years ago - it seems as if you have not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mooandboo Posted December 5, 2007 Report Share Posted December 5, 2007 Whatever the *rights* of anyone, homosexual, straight, wanting child but no relationship etc I wish that the rights of the child created by sperm donation would be set in stone so that they can have a chance to understand those aspects of their personality, health etc which don't quite fit with the parents who are caring for them. There's nothing worse for me than a child who could know these things but hasn't been allowed to know because the rights of the adults involved take precedence over theirs. Financial involvement is, to me, the least of their (the child) worries. In answer to the original question, I have to agree with Sam. Ian, do you know any children from such an *environment*? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scotslass Posted December 5, 2007 Report Share Posted December 5, 2007 I have just seen this story featured on GMTV. A man was approached by a lesbian couple to provide sperm so that the couple could have a child. Now the couple have split up the man has been forced to pay child maintenance via the CSA. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml...3/nsperm103.xml I think the guy was foolish to have been involved with this via a private arrangement but is it fair that he should now be held responsible for the child now that the couple have split up? Does anyone have any thoughts on this matter? This article gives more insight in this case. I've quoted the original post because that article was the one I thought we were basing our discussion on, and it says nothing about the father's involvement. Thanks to madmerle for giving the link to a different source, which others may already have been aware of. Having said that, we'd do well to be sceptical about either report...scandal sells papers, after all. Finally, as a single parent myself, no-one has to tell me about some fathers being reluctant providers. I know only too well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suzeanna Posted December 5, 2007 Report Share Posted December 5, 2007 " work on the Southampton Gay Scene, where the norm is gay and lesbian couples with kids of varying different ages from previous hetro relationships, these kids are the most well adjusted kids, and are brought up in stable loving homes which is what kids need. It is irrelevant whether whether it is a gay or straight home. Society has changed from what is was ten even twenty years ago - it seems as if you have not. " I know this is straying from the original point of the post, but just thought that I'd comment on this...yes they may be well adjusted in an environment where they are the norm.....but they aren't necessarily accepted where they aren't. I've read in our local paper a couple of times recently of lesbian couples who are having to move because of the hostile reaction of their neighbours, and on a personal level, a colleague of my husband is a transsexual (male to female) living with another woman and her daughter. They have had to take the girl out of school and homeschool her because of the level of bullying, and they are selling their house because of the continual egg throwing and graffiti, not to mention damage to their cars, in the area where they are. So...some of society may have changed..but not all, I'm afraid. The girl in this case, who is thirteen or so I think, is so affected by it they think she will need to see a therapist, and my husband's colleague has been off work for the past five weeks with no sign of coming back yet with stress. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scotslass Posted December 5, 2007 Report Share Posted December 5, 2007 If a child was adopted and then the adoptive parents relationship broke down, would it then be ok to chase the biological parents for support? Some people might now argue, on the basis of this case, that it would be ok. Is that what you meant (sorry, having senior moments here )? Some natural parents have contact rights, don't they, even when the child has been adopted? I'd imagine that most adoptive parents, though, feel that they are now the child's "real" parents, with all its responsibilities, and wouldn't want a financial contribution from the natural parents. To get back to the children in this case, I feel sad for them that neither the absent mother nor the biological father seems to take parenthood particularly seriously. While I can understand the anger towards this man, I am having trouble understanding why we don't condemn the absent mother to the same extent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phoebejo Posted December 5, 2007 Report Share Posted December 5, 2007 If he is to be held responsible....what about a baby who is adopted...and then the adoptive father leaves the family home. Who does the woman go after for maintenance? her ex...who is not the child's father...or the real father who presumably didn't want it in the first place? If the child was adopted then those are his/her legal parents and if the relationship breaks down they are both responsible. The law states that the adoptive father would have to pay. If what I read was right, if the children in this case were adopted by their mothers gay partner then the biological father would've held no rights and would not have had to pay maintenance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scotslass Posted December 5, 2007 Report Share Posted December 5, 2007 Ian if I remember rightly you have no children of your own - is that correct ? Kids can be cruel about disabilities, looks, whether you wear glasses or not, obese, unable to swim etc etc ride a bike and be bullied for any number of reasons. The reasons why kids become bullied is because of the way they have been brought up and the way parents convey tolerance and intolerance. I work on the Southampton Gay Scene, where the norm is gay and lesbian couples with kids of varying different ages from previous hetro relationships, these kids are the most well adjusted kids, and are brought up in stable loving homes which is what kids need. It is irrelevant whether whether it is a gay or straight home. Society has changed from what is was ten even twenty years ago - it seems as if you have not. I'm not sure why Ian isn't allowed to express his views just because he doesn't have children. I am not part of a gay couple but I'm choosing to comment on this case. Moreover, I will never be part of a gay couple, so have no experience of that situation, while it is likely that Ian has been a child at some point. Also, I think your assessment of the "Southampton Gay Scene" may be rose-tinted. It's unlikely, surely, that those children are all "the most well adjusted kids" - for a start, if they are the product of previous hetero relationships, as you say, they must be missing an absent parent? Or do they all have contact and financial input from those absent parents? I agree, obviously, that children need stability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alison Posted December 5, 2007 Report Share Posted December 5, 2007 (edited) They don't have powers to remove cash from a bank account I was astonished to learn that the agency has this power, but it definitely does according to what I heard on Radio 4 (yesterday evening on the PM programme – linky here then go to the Listen Again feature if you want to hear it yourself). Nigel Farage, leader of The UK Independence Party and MEP, was arguing that this power, particularly when paternity has not yet been established, is something that should be decided by the courts and not by civil servants. Here’s something I found quickly on t’interweb for the purposes of having something readily quotable to post here: “The Bill will also contain new powers to fine absent fathers, deduct money direct from their bank account, take away passports and impose curfews. The commission will share information on parents with credit agencies, potentially affecting future loan or mortgage applications. It can also charge absent parents for the cost of pursuing them if they default on payments.†This article was written early in June 2007 so perhaps this Bill has gone through now and that's why things have changed Cheryl? Link to source of quote Edited December 5, 2007 by Alison Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phoebejo Posted December 5, 2007 Report Share Posted December 5, 2007 I stand corrected, I hadn't known about the new Bill. It's a double edged sword really, I can see how it could be highly advantageous for mothers like me who could barely extract a single penny without fighting tooth and nail for it from their ex but on the other hand innocent men could suffer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JessandCos Posted December 5, 2007 Report Share Posted December 5, 2007 I'm not sure why Ian isn't allowed to express his views just because he doesn't have children. I am not part of a gay couple but I'm choosing to comment on this case. Moreover, I will never be part of a gay couple, so have no experience of that situation, while it is likely that Ian has been a child at some point. Also, I think your assessment of the "Southampton Gay Scene" may be rose-tinted. It's unlikely, surely, that those children are all "the most well adjusted kids" - for a start, if they are the product of previous hetero relationships, as you say, they must be missing an absent parent? Or do they all have contact and financial input from those absent parents? I agree, obviously, that children need stability. I was just making an observation re Ian not having children that was my point. My viewpoint of the the Southampton Gay scene is certainl;y not rose tinted either. Yes the kids are well adjusted some have contact with the missing parties some don't, as some have financial input but most don't. I am speaking from my first hand experience, I know homophobia exists, as I have been on the receiving end of it not from a stranger but from someone who was my closeest friend for 10 years, that friendship ended a year ago My own kids have had no contact with their own father as he gave up parental responsibility 7 years ago and also gave up all financial input as well. Do they miss him - no. Do they have any desire to be in contact with him - no. Are they well adjusted - yes very much so, they are both high achievers at school and college and are kids to be proud of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melp Posted December 5, 2007 Report Share Posted December 5, 2007 Ian, like everyone else is entitled to an opinion. I would hae hoped though that he would have expressed it with some sensitivity. Being gay isn't a disease or a lifestyle choice, it's just what you are [or aren't]. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Posted December 5, 2007 Report Share Posted December 5, 2007 Ian, I'm horribly offended by some of your comments. That's unfortunate but we are all entitled to our own opinion & this is mine "Unnatural process"? is it only unnatural because the women are gay or because the actual insemination was done without having sex? If thats the case do you feel test tube babies/artificial insemination is unnatural? My comment in this context had nothing to do with them being gay - though it is of course in fact not only un natural but physically impossible for either two women or two men to produce a child - nature requires a man and a women - fact. As for artificial insemination whilst I'm not suggesting that I'm in any way opposed to a man and a woman having a child with the help of such methods when necessary again of course it's unnatural - the process is a product of science not nature. You say homosexuals and lesbians make their own choices in ther own homes. Choices about what exactly? being homosexual? I very much doubt that any gay person would see being gay as a choice. It's what you are not what you choose to be. That's a matter of debate for some people (though I am personally inclined to agree with you on that) Whether they practice homosexuality or lesbianism, either openly or otherwise is however a matter of choice just as you & I choose whether we lead a celibate / single / married / cohabiting lifestyle etc "Brought up in that environment" Are you living in the same century as the rest of us? I think you'll agree that it's a fact that the majority of children are not brought up in a single sex environment. Personally I believe that a suitable long term role model of each sex is best for any child As I said we're all entitled to an opinion. Fashionable or not that is mine, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tigga Posted December 5, 2007 Report Share Posted December 5, 2007 Decided a year ago was just going to lurk but just had to make one comment im so angry i could burst Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts