Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Ruffneck

Elton John And David Furnish Have Baby.

Recommended Posts

Not really something i agree with , the kids would get teased at school and everything should be done to see that children have one good female role model and one good male role model , not two of one.Also gay people seem more promiscuous for whatever reason.I'm against it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2010/dec/28/elton-john

Sir Elton John and his partner David Furnish have become fathers after using a surrogate mother in the US.

The boy, Zachary Jackson Levon Furnish-John, was born in California on Christmas Day, the 63-year-old singer's publicist confirmed today.

Zachary, who weighed 7lb 15oz, is John's first child with Furnish, with whom he formalised a civil partnership in 2005.

In a joint statement, the couple told USMagazine.com that "Zachary is healthy and doing well" and declared themselves "overwhelmed with happiness and joy at this very special moment".

The identity of their son's surrogate mother is being protected by the parents. It is not known whose sperm was used.

The US is one of the most popular destinations for UK citizens hoping to enter into surrogate arrangements. In California, unlike in Britain, surrogates can legally be paid a fee for their services. Sums of £25,000 or more per baby are common.

One of the attractions of going abroad is that some foreign systems of law allow the intended parents to acquire parenthood status after surrogacy automatically. In certain US states, including California, parents who have paid a surrogate can apply for a pre-birth order. This means that they, and not the woman who delivered the baby, will be listed as parents on the original birth certificate, regardless of whose egg and sperm was used in conception.

Though surrogacy is legal in the UK, a surrogate can only be reimbursed with "reasonable expenses". It is illegal to advertise for a surrogate or for a surrogate to advertise, and it is against the law for a clinic to match surrogates with prospective parents.

Surrogacy has been regulated in Britain since 1985, after Kim Cotton was paid £6,500 to carry a child conceived using her own egg but the sperm of a man whose wife was infertile.

John had spoken previously of his desire to become a father,

announcing last autumn he wanted to adopt a 14-month-old boy from

an orphanage in Ukraine. He revealed that the couple had talked about adoption but that it was Furnish who wanted to do it and he who had objected because of his age.

It was the death of his long-term keyboardist, Guy Babylon, that

helped changed John's mind in the end. Babylon, who died last year of a heart attack aged 52, had two children whom the singer described

as "wonderful".

He said at the time: "What better opportunity to replace someone I

lost than to replace him with someone I can give a future to?"

But his plans to adopt were reportedly thwarted by Ukrainian laws.

John's friends congratulated him today on entering fatherhood.

Actor Elizabeth Hurley was among the first to offer her best wishes to the singer and his partner.

Writing on Twitter, she said: "Massive congratulations to David and Elton on having their beautiful son. Can't wait for my first cuddle."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Elton Johns half brother agrees with me.

http://www.metrolyrics.com/2009-sir-elton-johns-half-brother-has-criticised-the-stars-plans-to-adopt-and-said-he-is-too-old-news.html

Sir Elton John's half-brother has criticised the star's plans to adopt and said he is too old.

Sir Elton, 62, recently expressed his desire to adopt a 15-month-old Ukrainian boy called Lev with partner David Furnish.

However, Elton's half-brother Geoff Dwight has said the singer's age could lead to the child getting bullied at school.

He added that the boy's alcoholic mum, who is also HIV positive, should be given the chance to clean up her act and take care of the boy.

Geoff said: "I hope she does [get the boy back]. I'm sure she hopes that one day she'll be able to deal with her kids."

The singer is not allowed to adopt the child under Ukrainian law as it is illegal for gay couples to adopt and parents over the age of 45 are also forbidden.

Geoff, who has two children, said: "That's sensible, you have to look at children growing up and the parents' ages."

He added: "From the child's point of view they've got to go to school. You know what it's like in school - if you've got anything slightly different, it gets pounced on.

I bet Elton John can surround the kid with more top role models from both sexes from more walks of life than you ever could. So why do you object?
The kid will become a spoilt brat , lets hope he doesn't turn out as crazy as his two fathers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't wait to see the spoofs on the likes of South Park and Family Guy over this :P.

The kids going to grow up a multi millionaire with the best education money can buy, etc. etc. - so good luck to him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I bet Elton John can surround the kid with more top role models from both sexes from more walks of life than you ever could. So why do you object?

The primary walk of life from which they will come is that of the entertainment industry/broadcast media. Those industries and the phrase "top role models" don't sit comfortably together in my mind and I'm sure many others will have a similar feling. Having said that, many of them will have lives which are certainly not the norm as far as "ordinary" folk are concerned so maybe the kid will get far less teasing and bullying than a kid who's dad's are Mr and Mr council estate gayers who's kid goes to the local comp?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are two questions here and so as not to muddy the issue I'll deal with them both separately.

1, Should old couples (<50 IMO) be allowed to have or adopt children?

No, it's immeasurably selfish and vile, tantamount to abuse. The child will not be armed with the tools to function in the wider world. What is the norm will seem alien to this child. While other parents are supporting their teenagers through a traumatic phase in life this poor kid will be wiping arses and dribble. This, IMVHO, is the act of a very insecure person who feels unfulfilled in life.

If it happens naturally then so be it, unfortunate for the child but probably unplanned.

IVF and adoption for people of this age should be illegal.

2, Should gay couples be allowed to adopt children.

:lol:

I ain't touching this one with a ten foot pole, but you can probably guess my view. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I said, I'm wholly in favour of gay couples having children, but can see that there are cases where a gay couple do a much much better job than some of the Jeremy Kyle 'normal' couples. What I find hugely strange and weird here, is that they have paid a woman to have their baby for them. This is because they had already been deemed entirely unsuitable to adopt, so what do they do? They take notice and pay someone to effectively overide the decision. Was she impregnated with one of their sperms, I guess so. How would two men decide on which one of their sperms to use?

Oh, **** it,

I, like you accept it is everyone’s 'unalienable right' to be gay and to live with whomever they like without fear or threat of prejudice.

Their homosexuality is 'their' normality but is it the normality?

Who will be the longterm male/female role model?

Would the child be brought up in an environment where it is likely to witness a societal balanced outlook on relationships?

Is there more chance, nurture over nature, that the child itself will be gay?

Now the bigger question,

Is homosexuality something to be encouraged or just accepted?

This is another one of these counter evolutionary situations we seem to get ourselves into by allowing beard stroking liberals to run free. One concision actively forces the next.

Mark my words, thin end of the wedge.

We'll all be walking round in aresless leather pants by Monday at this rate. :P

BTW, gay adoption is an order of magniude better for the child than the types you see on Jeremy Kyle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another relevant question: why should people who haven't tried to have a baby the natural way get to queue-jump people who've been trying for years? In the adoption waiting lists I mean, of course. (NB no personal interest involved!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Should gay couples be allowed to adopt? Simple answer - as long as they can provide the child a loving, caring home, and support it as required and expected, then obviously yes. Their sexual preferences have no bearing on their ability to raise a child.

For those who are worried about the kid being teased at school, well, better ban fat kids, brainy but weedy kids and ethnic minorities as well, as I suspect they are more likely to be teased as well. And in this case, I suspect being Elton John's son is probably going to yield more gains than losses in this department. Lets face it, the kid isn't going to do without anything.

What bothers me the most is Eltons age - and that is (obviously) unrelated to his sexual preferences, I cringe when I read of other media luvvies and new parents of that age. That said, David Furnish is 48 which is more acceptable - he should still be reasonably compos mentis and physically capable as the kid goes through his edumacation.

On the topic of the genetic material, we can already generate offspring from two male mice - e.g. see my mouse has two daddies. Who knows, perhaps one day we'll also be able to do this with humans?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd imagine he'll be educated at a school whereby Elton's wealth is not unusual. I imagine he'll be the only child there with 2 gay male parents who will vary between mid 60s and 80s, and who was born to a Mum who was paid to have him (as the adoption agencies had already declared his 2 dads were unsuitable) and then do one, for cash.

Shit, I wouldn't like that on my record as I start secondary school......

Yes, I agree he will be at an expensive school, but Elton John is exceptionally wealthy. I suspect this kid still be one of the better off kids even at the most exclusive schools. Furthermore, amongst the media luvvies that he is likely to be in with, having something like this is just as likely to be seen as cool as otherwise. If the parents were not so well off, and it was an ordinary school, this would not be the case - but then if they were ordinary parents, the news would be less public and would perhaps be less of an issue.

But as I alluded to in the post. You could make the same argument about the first black kids at British schools. Of course they were a target for teasing. On that basis, do you think black parents in the UK a few decades back should not have had children, on the basis that they would probably be teased at school?

Seems to me to be a pretty unconvincing argument, on the face of it. I realise racism was (and remains) a serious issue, as does homophobia. I don't think the solution is to continue to oppress the minority of their rights. I think it would be better to get people to seriously question whether being gay actually affects their ability to be parents in a rational, thoughtful and evidence-based way, rather than relying on centuries-old superstitions and prejudices.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However, when a rich rockstar decides in his mid 60s to essentially buy himself a kid, that's different and potentially making that kid's life hell. I don;t think you could even remotely make the same argument for not encouring black couples to breed - I don't see what that comparison has to do with this at all. These two are millions of miles apart. Don;t tell me that Elton got broody at 65. Sounds almost like a fashion accessory to me. If he was that bothered then maybe he wouldn;t have just dumped the kids with Furnish as he departs for a long tour. Which is just what he's about to do.

I think we've got some common ground here. I also question whether the increase in 60+ age group having kids is a good thing. I was mainly outlining my objections to the "teasing at school" argument - I think that is a weak one, but the age issue is quite a valid point IMHO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have a problem with any two people or one for that matter adopting a child by going through the normal channels...what I do have a problem with is someone paying for someone else to have a baby for them and buying a baby to bring up in your mid sixties. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Half the dire social problems in British society we now see and suffer from are the clear result of dysfunctional parents and kids being raised in dysfunctional home environments: realities such as One Parent Families do not create stable, well balanced and "Normal" children: who then grow into their teens and then adulthood, carrying deep psychological trauma and burdens.

Children raised in a "Normal" family are a product of a man and a woman: and their separate and collective love and nurture.

Children associate disparate parts of character to men and women. It's part of normal balance.

A child "raised" by two lesbians or two homosexuals cannot be "Normal": they will grow up predisposed towards an abnormal perspective of "Normality".

Consider: children raised in a home where, for example the father beats up and the mother regularly and the children, grow up with a strange attitude to normal treatment of women, often: same where the parents are junkies or alkies.

Same with child abuse.

Environmental Conditioning is an accepted reality of psychology: and behaviouralism, a la Pavlovian Conditioning.

As St. Ignatious Loyola said, "Give me a child to the age of five and I have him for life!"

Presently, society seems so fixated on the liberal imperative of determination to demonstrate such tolerance and lack of discrimination, it is losing its grasp on protecting and nurturing the vulnerable.

Just because the appalling Reg Dwight has managed to assemble obscene wealth by playing the same tune over and over in a different key to a marginally different tempo and has demonstrated, graphically, how he is somewhat loose touch on sanity over the years, shouldn't mean he or indeed anyone else ought to find it easy to circumvent conventional social mores, to the detriment of innocents.

If the man (I use the term somewhat lightly) really feels for children, then follow the example of such as Danny Kay and devote his wealth to children's causes: rather than collecting yet another trophy and must-have fashion accessory, to massage his somewhat weird ego.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

snip.............

You'll find few takers. I tried to explain the same thing but the usually vociferous posters on here haven't got the knackers for it.

For some reason this topic is akin to stepping into ice cold water, just watch them shrink up and disappear. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know gay couples who would make excellent parents, and I think there are studies showing that there is no higher prevalence of homosexuality in adults who grew up with same sex parents. However, renting a womb is essentially buying a baby which is just wrong in my opinion. In order to satisfy the parents' selfish needs they exploit another human being and bring a child into this world who has an egg from one woman and "baked" in another (I believe they do this in California to lessen the chances of one woman claiming maternal rights). It's interesting how some people can denounce prostittution on the one hand and indulge in this baby buying on the other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't be too hard on Elton . He does have serious mental health issues. The authorities will keep a close eye on the orphan child just in case of any abuse so no harm in it really. It just the modern slave trade where rich people buy poor people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is not the sexual orientation that is the main problem IMO. It is the age. He is 63 years old. I have a problem with any 63 year old adopting/creating a child.

There is a very good chance they will be dead by the time of the childs 16th birthday. Selfish in the extreme. IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know gay couples who would make excellent parents..........................

How can they: really?

Depends, I guess on your definition of "Excellent".

All OK I suppose if one wants to accept the future of the human race depends not on normal heterosexual procreation, but laboratory babes, human cloning, IVF, sperm and egg implantation and the like.

Now let's see..................

A nice chap called Dr Joseph Mengele was ahead of the game, back in the late 1930s and 1940s.

I guess the Western world was wrong to hold the Nuremburg Trials: ought to have allowed these "visionaries" free reign.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You'll find few takers. I tried to explain the same thing but the usually vociferous posters on here haven't got the knackers for it.

For some reason this topic is akin to stepping into ice cold water, just watch them shrink up and disappear. :lol:

Proves my point about sticking slavishly to the liberal imperative: bend over backwards to demonstrate zero discrimination and tolerance.

Trouble with that sort of blind acceptance to a spavined cause is intellectual myopia..............

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a very good chance they will be dead by the time of the childs 16th birthday. Selfish in the extreme. IMO.

By which time it's too late: the poor little bugger will already have been mentally distorted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Children raised in a "Normal" family are a product of a man and a woman: and their separate and collective love and nurture.

Children associate disparate parts of character to men and women. It's part of normal balance.

A child "raised" by two lesbians or two homosexuals cannot be "Normal": they will grow up predisposed towards an abnormal perspective of "Normality".

Ah, right. Homosexuals do not meet your arbitrary definition of "normal" and somehow are incapable of "love and nurture".

Thank you, Nick Griffin. No family meets a definition of "normal" and there is no particular reason that having a particular set of genitalia or hormones should be more or less capable of being loving or nurturing. There is no evidence to support these claims whatsoever, beyond bias and prejudice.

Consider: children raised in a home where, for example the father beats up and the mother regularly and the children, grow up with a strange attitude to normal treatment of women, often: same where the parents are junkies or alkies.

What, you mean like an everyday Victorian family, where the husband was legally allowed to beat his wife? What you describe was completely "normal" in those supposedly pious days. Why do you think homosexual relationships are more likely to involve partner abuse, drug abuse or alcohol abuse? I agree all of these things are bad qualities in parents, but I disagree that homosexuals are in any way more likely to do these things. Let's be honest: you just don't like gays and, without any evidence or justification, assume they fall into the same category as drug abusers and alcoholics. Thank you for your prejudice.

As St. Ignatious Loyola said, "Give me a child to the age of five and I have him for life!"

Why are we quoting catholic saints... oh, hang on. I think I get it now. This quote (which is usually attributed to St Francis Xavier, but was probably said by many) basically is about the indoctrination of children. This is why the religious (and the likes of Tony Blair) were so fond of faith schools - because religious leaders know only too well that prosyletising works best on children.

So, basically, this is all about indoctrination of children into (insert thousand+ year old superstition of your choice here). Well, it has to be, doesn't it? You basically fear that the children might hear a moral code based on reason rather than superstition. ROFLMAO.

Let's take your example. Child abuse is bad. So best have the children looked after by the morally righteous, like priests say, who won't abuse the children, whereas those nasty homosexuals will abuse the children. It must be true, Jebus said it, and some bloke wrote it down a few hundred years later. And anyway the likes of pope ratzinger have put in years of hard work hiding up the staggering amount of evidence of child abuse by priests. That wasn't for nothing!

I could argue that we would protect more children from abuse by banning priests from having access to children, rather than homosexuals, but if I was to argue that then I would be just as guilty of prejudice as you. Let's identify those who are likely to abuse children, whether they are priests, homosexuals, or regular parents, and keep those away from children, and let everyone else get on with their lives, hmm?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As St. Ignatious Loyola said, "Give me a child to the age of five and I have him for life!"

it was actually give me a child from the age of 7

sorry my Jesuit education coming out there

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. Homosexuals are free to do whatever they want as long as it doesn't frighten the horses, but they tend to be self destructive and unstable personalities, so I'm against bringing in a child to this situation. Not very PC to point out, but there it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it was actually give me a child from the age of 7

sorry my Jesuit education coming out there

I'm obliged: it's stagflation you know................

:)

Nothing to be sorry about: The Society of Jesus spawned some of the World's greatest scholars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 312 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.