Tuesday, December 28, 2010

Andrei Elton Johns' a daddy

Zachary Jackson Levon Furnish-John was born weighing 7lbs 15oz via surrogate mother in California on Christmas day.
'We are overwhelmed with happiness and joy at this very special moment,' Sir Elton and Furnish said in a joint statement.
'Zachary is healthy and doing really well, and we are very proud and happy parents.'

Children are commodities, like designer pets these days it seems.

97 comment(s):

dad4justice said...

It's a very sick and sad world for children. This child will have all the money in the world, but no mum just two turd tapping queer dads.Sordid stuff from selfish faggots.

Lucia Maria said...

Poor baby. Babies at that age really just need their mothers, and he's to be handed over to two men. It's sad and terrible.

Tanya said...

Oh well, any life is better than none, and this child still exists because Elton wanted one. He'll never go without, and he won't be a child forever. Far better than abortion, at least he has a chance at life. Two daddies, but alive and well.

leftrightout said...

OMG! Two, or is it 3, people WANT a baby and the right to lifers are up in arms!

Yes, Lucia Maria, I agree that children need their mothers. Shame that Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted of Phoenix, AZ doesnt agree with us.

HE thinks it far better that 4 children should be left motherless to assuage his god's denial of abortion, even when that abortion is a)essntial to preserve the mother's life and b) of a foetus that was destined to die a nyway.

Double standards, anybody?

I.M Fletcher said...

I'll tell you what the baby is - it's an accessory. They've got the house, the faux 'marriage', the dog, and now they want the baby so they can have the whole life "experience". Elton is 63 now - when the kid is 21 he'll be 84 (if he's still alive at all). Not sure if it's fair on a kid having it at this time of life - maybe that's why it's not possible for women to give birth after their 40's (without medical mucking around).

Tanya, although I agree it's better than abortion, I wonder how the baby was manufactured for them - how many other embryos have been wasted or frozen to get the desired result. So, who is the actual, you know, mother then? Who actually birthed it? It sure wasn't Elton or his husband. The simple fact is that men can't birth babies. He may grow up normal but I think it's doubtful.

ZenTiger said...

Two wrongs don't necessarily make a right LRO. Using one unrelated case to argue the other doesn't always work. Rather than argue the issue at hand, you are changing the topic completely. Stick to the current one, it's a thorny enough issue to merit some focus.

OMG! Two, or is it 3, people WANT a baby and the right to lifers are up in arms!

Firstly, just because some-one WANTS a baby doesn't make them committed and capable parents. At age 63, having a baby manufactured so Elton can fill out his life experiences strikes me as just a little selfish.

Secondly, if its three, there's no indication that the third wanted it more than the length of time to be paid to be a surrogate. Although later, once Elton and partner are dead from old age, they may be planning to take back the child and the inherited wealth, so it could have been an astute move.

Hopefully, the child will be LOVED rather than just WANTED, LRO.

libertyscott said...

As someone who was a "commodified baby" (unwed mother, unable to raise me in an age before the welfare state) I think I can give a personal perspective.

Being wanted is rather precious, and that does translate into being loved. My birth mother couldn't keep me, primarily for financial reasons (my biological father ran away when he heard the news), so I was left to the state to hand me out to whoever wanted me. The only qualifications were that those who would get me were married and had no criminal record, not that I knew. However, I did get a remarkable doting loving couple for parents, who could never do enough for me. Yes, discovering I was adopted was a bit of a shock, but it was the best thing for me.

Now people know I am socially liberal. If given the choice of being in a large ward cared for by nurses with other babies and being adopted by a wealthy gay couple, I'd pick the latter. However, I would always prefer a mother and father to having two of one sex, assuming all other things to be equal (no criminal history, financially competent, stable long term relationship). There can be a whole list of other factors as well, but I'd put having parents of both sexes a priority over adoptions by single people or single-sex couples.

I'd much rather there were far more adoptions than many ill-equipped young women raise accidental children on welfare, but whilst I wouldn't put legal restrictions on gay adoption, it still doesn't take away from my preference that children be raised by parents of both sexes.

I say that knowing quite a few gay people who I think would be better than average parents, but that doesn't take away from preferring children have two full time role models of both sexes.

I.M Fletcher said...

I note also that Elton and Furnish tried to adopt a Ukrainian child last year but were turned down because he is "too old" and "not married".

At least the Ukrainians have some common sense...

Music icon Elton John can't adopt a 14-month-old Ukranian orphan because the singer is unmarried and too old, an adoption official said Monday.

Ukrainian law dictates that adoptive parents must be married, the official said, and Ukraine does not recognize homosexual unions as marriage.

He added that a prospective parent cannot be more than 45 years older than an adopted child.

ZenTiger said...

Thanks for your insight LibertyScott.

William Stout said...

And don't forget the fact that homosexual parents are four times more likely to raise another homosexual. Thus it would seem that there is something to such things being learned after all.

MK said...

Poor kid, what a life of misery is in stall for him when he gets to school. But fear not his progressive parents will lecture him, society is the one that has to change. Hopefully they'll have enough money to keep the bullies at bay.

Laurie Fleming said...

It could be worse - it could have Michael Laws as a father. Or any of you hateful ignorant bigots.

ZenTiger said...

it could have Michael Laws as a father.

it?

and what a hateful and bigoted thing to say, Laurie. Must you be so judgmental?

Laurie Fleming said...

Oh, it was a boy - in which case, just pretend I said "he".

As for being hateful, bigoted and judgemental, I was following the trend.

Andrei said...

hateful ignorant bigots examples of words flung around to stifle debate with those with whom you disagree.

Question 1: Do you think that it isn't exploitation for a very wealthy man to pay a poor woman to carry a child in her womb for him, a child she will probably never see again

Question 2: Nature has arranged matters so that peoples fertility declines with age and this is presumably to ensure that when raising our families we are in our prime so as to be able to do active things with them as they grow and to still be alive until they are capable of personal independence.

Do you think it is right for the elderly to take on the responsibility for young children except in circumstances perhaps where grandparents take on their orphaned grandchildren a tragic necessity.

Question 3: Do you think that a child is entitled where possible to be raised by their biological parents of complimentary gender.

These are non trivial questions

Laurie Fleming said...

#1. No. Funnily enough I haven't ever spoken to Elton John so I can't know for sure, but he has spoken about his love for this child. Good on him. Children need love.

#2. I think it's fine. His partner is only 48, which isn't too old by any means. Even then assume that Elton John lives for another 20 years and remains functional through this time - that's long enough to bring up a child to maturity.

#3. I think children not only are entitled but have an absolute right to be brought up in a loving household. Two parents are better than one, because they can spread the load.

But you're attempting to frame the question by "Do you think" and "entitled" and "tragic" and "biological parents". You have your own bigotry. Don't you think? Do you think?

PS Nature has not arranged matters (oops - we're getting into evolutionary theory here!) so that fertility specifically declines with age. Virtually everything declines with age. Menopause in prior centuries often never happened because women died before they got that far. So "presumably to ensure" doesn't come into it.

Redbaiter said...

"hateful ignorant bigots examples of words flung around to stifle debate with those with whom you disagree."

Laurie has been like that for years. A typical Progressive.

leftrightout said...

Question 1: Do you think that it isn't exploitation for a very wealthy man to pay a poor woman to carry a child in her womb for him, a child she will probably never see again

Not sure we know she is poor, or will never see the child again. Are you saying that it is not exploitation if the woamn is wealthy and will see the child again?


Question 2: Nature has arranged matters so that peoples fertility declines with age and this is presumably to ensure that when raising our families we are in our prime so as to be able to do active things with them as they grow and to still be alive until they are capable of personal independence.

Bzzzzt wrong.

Women's fertility declines until it is non existent, however a man's still able to impregnate a woamn well in to his dotage.

Do you think it is right for the elderly to take on the responsibility for young children except in circumstances perhaps where grandparents take on their orphaned grandchildren a tragic necessity.



Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall you asking this question when Wendy Deng gave birth in 2001 and 2003. What's the difference? Rupert Murdoch is 16 years OLDER than Elton John.

Question 3: Do you think that a child is entitled where possible to be raised by their biological parents of complimentary gender.

I think a child is entitled to be raised in a loving and nurturing environment, where the child is permitted to grow and develop.

These are serios answers. And you won't find them in Genesis,

Lucia Maria said...

In an ideal world, every single woman would refuse to be a surrogate, because they would all instictively know that creating children for sale was wrong. And yet, here we are, trying to argue against the absurd with degenerates, who don't care that a child was manufactured for two guys who should have just taken a visit to the local pound and got a dog, to satisfy their momentary desire to become parents. At least a dog wouldn't wonder why his mother sold him.

It's one thing to be given up (as Liberty Scott was) because the mother couldn't look after the baby, so she gives him or her to two people that she considers will be good parents, and it's another thing entirely to help in the creation of a child for an unsuitable person and his male consort.

Homosexuality is pure hedonism. An indulgence in sexual gratification. A man who cannot give up his desires for a woman has no ability to be a good father.

Redbaiter said...

Just one child too. No brothers and sisters. This lone kid exists merely as a material possession of two offensive spoiled brat fags who have a reputation for discarding other material possessions whenever they tire of them.

leftrightout said...

Lucia, I don't agree that homosexuality is "pure hedonism", but even if it were, so what?

Just what is wrong with a little pure pleasure now and again?

Redbaiter, shame your brain cell is an only child. Do you condemn all parents who have only one child? Do you know, beyond reasonable doubt, that Mr John will stop at 1?

Lucia Maria said...

RB,

There could have been brothers and sisters that were discarded along the way, if this were done via IVF. Maybe there still are.

LRO,

Pure hedonism and a little pleasure now and then are not the same thing. The first is an excess. When something is done to excess, it trains the appetite to expect that excess, and it degrades the will to resist. That is what is wrong with it.

A person with a weak will and excessive appetites will first and foremost think of themselves. Any other persons needs and wants don't even come second or third or fourth, if they figure at all. Not a good person to have as a parent, whereby a certain amount of self-sacrifice is needed to start with. A man who sacrifices his future life to his wife knows, in part, how to do this. The rest of his life is going deeper and deeper into that immolation, so to to speak.

Two men who are trying to simulate that can't even come close, even if they get the right accessories (ie a child) because they haven't even made the first sacrificial step.

Redbaiter said...

"Redbaiter, shame your brain cell is an only child. Do you condemn all parents who have only one child?"

I condemn your parents. They should have strangled you at birth.

leftrightout said...

Poor old redbaiter, a Mad hatter short of a Tea Party.

Boganette said...

Elton John has been with David Furnish exclusively for 18 years. They're a stable couple who have been married since 2005. They're both able to devote all their time to this child because they have the money and skills to do so. They've been talking about children and their desire to have children for at least 10 years. Elton John has spent the last 25 years at least working for charities that make the world a better place. Your only problem is that they're gay. And you people hate gay people. It's as simple at that. He will be a better parent than people who think it's OK to call others 'fags'. He will also be a better parent than those of you who spend most of your time on a blog ranting about gay people. I am far more concerned about your health than I am about the health of that child who is lucky to be being brought up by people who aren't hateful bigots. You all seem to spend a lot of time fantasising about what Elton John and other gay people do in bed and that doesn't seem like a normal way to spend your life. Maybe you should spend less time judging others online and more time trying to be better parents. It'd be good for your kids.

Ciaron said...

they have the money and skills to do so.... Really? which one provides the Mothers skill? I know, it will be the full time nanny.

What evidence do you have for your assertion that time & money on tap will ensure superior parenting?

Personally, I think that being in a position of celebrity makes it all but impossible to present an undistorted environment for a child.

You all seem to spend a lot of time fantasizing about what Elton John and other gay people do in bed
I think not.

I sincerely hope for the child's sake that he is not treated as a commodity, and that the responsibilities of being a parent are not lost on Mr & Mr John, But I won't hold my breath.

And As for you, Left Right Out, I can't take anything you say seriously, as you spend more time writing for this blog than your own.

Andrei said...

I am surprised Bogonette that any feminist would not be outraged at the use of a woman as a mere incubator for a child.

It is demeaning to women, it is demeaning to mothers and motherhood and it is utterly demeaning to humanity to use a woman in this manner.

I call it perverse

Boganette said...

Sigh. Oh the hysteria of it all. By that logic Ciaron - celebrities shouldn't be allowed children at all - so where is the outrage over every other celebrity who become a parent?

Also by that logic - If a woman dies her children should be taken from their father so they can be raised by a woman since fathers are not really that important. Children can be raised without a mother - my best friend lost her mother to breast cancer and was raised by her father from the age of 3. Should she have been removed from that home? Why do you think fathers are so unimportant? Also these guys don't live in some fantasy gay-world where there are no women around. Do you not think they both have mothers/sisters/aunts/female friends? Stop being so ridiculous for Goodness sake - these kids will have women who love them in their lives. Please attempt to be rational for once. And in terms of the fact that they're rich being a help - considering the posters on this blog spend all their time ranting incoherently about how women on welfare shouldn't have children because they can't afford them - I find it strange that you suddenly think having the money to afford a child isn't important now.

Andrei don't tell women what is demeaning and what isn't demeaning to them. We can actually figure that out of ourselves. I don't actually need a man to tell me what my morals should be and what I should find degrading. Women can make their own choices in life. As much as you would love to be able to control all the women in the world Andrei - it's just not possible.And also - you're anti-choice. So it's pretty fucking rich you claiming I think women are incubators when you believe the entire purpose of our existence is to carry children and then die since we're not even worth anything once we breed. Gosh, this really is the twilight zone. You people can't even keep up with your own idiotic opinions.

Ciaron said...

You can try to put all the words in my mouth that you want, but that's not what I said.

You asserted that the time and money that is available to the John's would make them superior parents to the Authors & most of the commenters, whilst I suggested that being a celebrity would make it all but impossible to raise a child without a distorted view of the world, which is a far cry from saying they shouldn't be allowed to breed.

Boganette said...

No I said that they would be better parents than bigots who call people fags and spend all their time online fixated on what other people do in bed. And I stand by that. Learn to read.

Ciaron said...

Your only problem is that they're gay. And you people hate gay people. It's as simple at that. He will be a better parent than people who think it's OK to call others 'fags'. He will also be a better parent than those of you who spend most of your time on a blog ranting about gay people. I am far more concerned about your health than I am about the health of that child who is lucky to be being brought up by people who aren't hateful bigots. You all seem to spend a lot of time fantasising about what Elton John and other gay people do in bed and that doesn't seem like a normal way to spend your life.

That reads like you're stating that we are all bigots.

I dunno, I only got a B for 5th form English...

Laurie Fleming said...

Ciaron, do you have children? Based on your comments here, don't you think they might have a distorted view of the world? or is it crystal clear and perfect?

Lucia Maria said...

Boganette,

To call two men a couple is mock male/female relationships. To say that money and time are the skills necessary to raise a child is to show the most profound ignorance of what it means to have children.

Self-sacrificial love is the first requirement to be a parent. A man cannot do this with another man. Children turn your entire world upside down, therefore if your entire life experience to that point is indulging in your every desire, then you have very little chance of being a good parent. No matter how much money you have, no matter how much time you have, no matter how much you wanted the child in the first place.

You say Elton has been wanting a child for 10 years. But rather than then working out what changes he needed to make in his life to make that a reality, he instead worked on bending reality to make it happen. What could have been an opportunity to have a good hard look at his life was wasted, because in this brave new world of manufactured children, it's easy to find a woman who will sell herself as an incubator and hand over the child.

You tell Andrei not to tell women what is demeaning, yet, you as a person has no problem with women killing off their problem children via abortion. You are hardly qualified to speak for us as you barely know what it is to be female yourself.

When it comes to it, you don't give a damn about this boy, about children, about life - it's all about the person getting what they want. In this case, Elton wants a baby, Elton gets a baby. Those who pave the way for others to also children as accessories to their immoral lifestyles a way of normalising themselves are defended to the max to ensure that every drop kick who wants a baby can get one too.

As for fixating on what other people do in bed - that fixation is entirely in your own mind, projected outwards. The hypersexed cannot think any other way.

Ciaron said...

I don't think many achieve that clarity but I'm sure they'll have a damn sight better shot at it out of the media spotlight.

Boganette said...

Ok Lucia. I'm going to let this go. I'm not going to ever be able to convince you that gay people are human beings with hopes and dreams like any other person.

In terms of your other comments - I'm sorry that you feel that just because I want to make my own choices in life I'm not a woman. It's your choice to be subservient to the men in your life and a slave to your religion. I respect your choice even though It's not one I would make.

Ciaron - Yes, I think you're a bigot. Does that clear things up?

Boganette said...

And hypersexed? Is that supposed to be an insult? I'm surprised you can say it without blushing Lucia. I don't see sex as a chore that I have to suffer through in order to impregnate myself with an endless supply of children in order to feel validated as a woman and keep my ruler (oops I mean husband) happy. So yeah I guess you can call my hypersexed. Thanks.

Ciaron said...

And I think you're a deluded self centered tramp who lacks in comprehension & intellect, but lets not form lifelong opinions upon a couple of blog comments.

Laurie Fleming said...

What a hateful and bigoted thing to say, Ciaron. Must you be so judgemental?

Boganette said...

I knew it wouldn't take long for you to call a woman a tramp for disagreeing with you. True colours and all that. And it's 'centred'. But you'd know that wouldn't you - what with your "B" for fifth-form English. Didn't make it to fifth-form did you? Let's not lie.

ZenTiger said...

Ok Lucia. I'm going to let this go. I'm not going to ever be able to convince you that gay people are human beings with hopes and dreams like any other person.

Of course gay people are human beings with hopes and dreams like any other person. Who ever said they weren't?

So are 66 year old women who want babies, whether or not there are fathers around.

So are drug addicts. So are single people. So are married couples who are infertile. So are divorced people. So are the children of divorced people.

So are all of us, in our own ways, imperfect, normal and yet not normal, for a huge variety of reasons. All are human, all are entitled to love, and all need to work to earn respect. All have hopes and dreams and all will have challenges ahead of them.

I'm not sure manufacturing babies on demand negates the above statement, it's a different discussion.

I personally think that chances are Elton and David's child will end up far better off than most children alive today, and time will tell. I'm sure if we ask the question of the boy in 16 years time he will say he's glad to be alive. Just like most aborted kids would likely answer.

That does not take away from the point though that the baby was brought into this world by a mother that will possibly never see her child again, raised without the benefit of a mother, and raised by one father who may not be around to see his son's 16th birthday. It's hard to see if the "what I want" is stronger than "what was best for the kid".

I wonder why he gave up his quest for adoption? Apparently, he was offered to become a guardian of the Ukrainian brothers he wished to adopt, and said he'd have them over for holidays, and he would act like their uncle. So I guess this new boy has two new friends already?

ZenTiger said...

Laurie, apparently it's the trend here. But humans are by their nature judgmental and discriminating. I think that's generally a strength.

What matters is our ability to discuss it rather than leap in with "any of you hateful bigots".

Do you think my link to the 66 year old mother a simple issue of "well, if she wants a baby, then let her have one"? Should we be judgmental there too? What about a reformed pedophile wanting to buy a baby, even if he is 63 years old, single and apparently sincere? Are we allowed to be judgmental now?

Redbaiter said...

"What a hateful and bigoted thing to say, Ciaron. Must you be so judgemental?"

Says Laurie, being judgmental.

I.M Fletcher said...

It seems to be a weapon of feminists and the Left to call anyone they don't agree with "hateful bigots".

Why is someone full of hate and a 'bigot' if they don't agree with your point of view? It's a tactic right out of Saul Alinsky's Rules For Radicals. Label those who don't agree with you as haters.

For your information, I neither hate nor fear homosexuals, no more so than I'd hate anyone. I watch Project Runway, and quite like Tim - he seems like a nice man - but I would also disagree with him raising a child with another man.

It's one thing to hate someone, it's another to simply disagree with their conduct. If you were a Vegan or a vegetarian, you'd probably think it was wrong that I ate meat and disagree with me doing it, but you wouldn't hate me for it, surely? Likewise, again, I neither hate nor fear homosexuals, but am I not allowed to disagree with anything they do? Who says so?

I disagree with Mr and Mr John having a child because (as others have said) I think it's bad for the child and for society to have aberrant behaviour normalized.

Laurie Fleming said...

Ah, Redbaiter, if you only you appreciated that irony is not what you press your moth-eaten old toupey with, and ad hominem is not what homosexualists get up to.

Boganette said...

You watch Project Runway? Oh well you're fine then. Gosh, I'm so sorry I didn't know that you were personally OK with one TV homo. You're not a bigot at all! Is there any way I can make it up to you? It must be the worst thing in the world being called out for essentially saying being gay means you're completely incapable of parenting when you actually WATCH a homosexual on TV and therefore COULD NOT POSSIBLY be being an bigot with that statement. Wow. I am just SO, SO, SORRY.

ZenTiger said...

when you believe the entire purpose of our existence is to carry children and then die since we're not even worth anything once we breed.

You have to go through some pretty impressive twists of logic to make those assertions. You are just so wrong on that statement Boganette. I think its fairly rich that you go on thinking that when there is so much evidence to the contrary.

I.M Fletcher said...

Boganette, apology accepted. See, that wasn't so hard?

Seriously though, I was giving one example, but I see you're using another weapon now, sarcasm. Another Alinksy tactic?

You've used my one example as a point on which to attack me while ignoring my main point - how does it make me a hater and a bigot by disagreeing with someone's conduct?

Or can you not take me at my word that I neither hate nor fear homosexuals?

Redbaiter said...

Laurie, you have offered nothing at all to this thread other than silly wrongly premised questions and immature insults towards those who dare to express thoughts that challenge your own opinions.

Short version- "How dare you think and speak that way."

You're just a standard common and garden variety style Progressive with the same insufferable intolerance of freedom of expression all such species suffer from.

You need to learn that your days of controlling how people think and speak are long over.

It must be stressful I know seeing your delusional little Potemkin village gradually pulled down around your ears, but if you can't handle the strain of it all, see if you can find some other means of allaying your fear other than by boring people stupid in the comments section of blogs.

Maybe you could just emigrate to Kalifornia.

Boganette said...

Listen Fletch - If you didn't hate or fear gay people you wouldn't spend the majority of your existence complaining about them and anything they do. If you didn't hate them you wouldn't imply their children should be taken from them, that they can't possibly be good parents or should even be able to be parents at all. That they shouldn't be allowed to father or mother children or adopt or create a family. You wouldn't claim without evidence that the children of gay people are disadvantaged in any way. You wouldn't imply that they live half-lives and are unworthy of living a life with children and love in it. Stop being so disingenuous. You don't think gay people should be able to do any of the things you are able to do. You think they're actually bad for children. That they hurt children. That's hatred. That's bigotry. You're trying to stop other people from living their lives when they've done nothing to hurt you or anyone else. You have no proof that they make bad husbands/wives/parents. I think your posts on here make you sound like an awful human being but I am not going to claim you don't have the right to marry or parent just because I personally think that.

And ZT - when you think it's preferable for a woman to die than have an abortion to save her life then you're choosing which side of the fence you sit on.

Boganette said...

And Redbaiter grow a spine. Nobody is taking away your right to free speech. Again with the fricken histeria! Did you only just discover the internet or something?

ZenTiger said...

Well, Bog. (at least as far as I am concerned), yet another false assumption you are working from. Although I should point out that framing questions in a Sophie's choice way isn't always the only options actually presented to us.

Also, a bit rich for you to moralize on the life of a mother, when you have no problems killing off a 23 week old unborn if the mother simply doesn't feel like going through with the birth. Can I borrow your irony tag for a while?

Boganette said...

Oh I'm sorry ZT have you changed your mind? Do you think it's OK for a foetus to be terminated if the mother's life is at risk if she carries on with the pregnancy?

Oh, you haven't changed your mind? You're just to much of a coward to own your own beliefs? Thought so.

And what are you talking about? I wouldn't kill a 23 week old 'unborn'. Jeez it's not enough that you losers think I worship Satan and make sacrifices of testicles - you also think I just randomly go about killing 23 week old 'unborns'? How would I even do that? I work 50+ hour weeks you know. I don't have time to go around killing foetuses.

I.M Fletcher said...

Listen Fletch - If you didn't hate or fear gay people you wouldn't spend the majority of your existence complaining about them and anything they do

Actually, I don't care what gays do to each other on their own time in the privacy of their bedrooms etc. What I do have an issue with is when they want their practices and conduct (including sodomy) to be accepted as normal; and anyone who disagrees with them called "homophobic" and associated with haters and bigots.

As a liberal, I'm sure you're all in favour of anyone being able to do anything they please.

Dr Scott Lively points out in talking to homosexuals that any disagreement with anything they do is hate. Really?


I hate being called a homophobe. It has such an ugly connotation. Its especially unpleasant because, as a Christian, I'm supposed to have a reputation for loving people, not hating them. So I've worked really hard over the years to try to get the homosexuals to stop calling me a homophobe. I've pointed out the difference between hating people and hating their behavior (loving the sinner but hating the sin). They hated that. Then I tried "walking my talk" by taking an ex-'gay' man who was dying of AIDS into my family. My wife and I and our children loved and cared for him during the last year of his life. They hated that even more.

Then I began asking for guidance from homosexuals themselves: "Tell me, where is the line between homophobia and acceptable opposition to homosexuality?" I asked. "What if I just agree with the Bible that homosexuality is a sin no worse than any other sex outside of marriage?" "No, that's homophobic," they replied. "Suppose I talk only about the proven medical hazards of gay sex and try to discourage people from hurting themselves?" "No, you can?t do that," they said. "How about if I say that homosexuals have the option to change if they choose?" "Ridiculous" they answered. "Maybe I could just be completely positive, say nothing about homosexuality, and focus only on promoting the natural family and traditional marriage?" "That's really hateful," they replied.

There is no escape. A homophobe is anyone who, for any reason, disapproves of homosexuality in any way, shape, manner, form or degree. This leaves me with just two choices: agree that everything about homosexuality is natural, normal, healthy, moral and worthy to be celebrated OR be labeled as a mentally ill, hate-filled bigot.

Am I wrong? Is there any way to openly disapprove of homosexuality without being a homophobe? "Gay" leaders, please set me straight on this.

There's a queer reasoning behind all of this. Homosexuals call me names like bigot and homophobe, condemn my religion, mock my rational conclusions about social issues, impugn my motives, display intense hostility toward my actions, and curse my very existence, all under the justification that I'm a "hater." But if I'm a "hater" for civilly opposing what they do, why aren't they haters for uncivilly opposing what I do? Such a double standard, in the context of a public debate on "civil rights," is not just hypocritical, it is surreal.

I admit I have some hate. I hate watching people kill themselves with preventable diseases like AIDS. I hate seeing children being steered toward unhealthy lifestyles. I hate having my pro-family views distorted by dishonest journalists, politicians and academics.

Lucia Maria said...

"Tell me, where is the line between homophobia and acceptable opposition to homosexuality?"

What a great point.

I would love to hear Boganette's answer to this one.

Lucia Maria said...

Boganette,

... I'm not going to ever be able to convince you that gay people are human beings with hopes and dreams like any other person.

You don't need to. I know that struggle with same sex attraction are human beings. Unfortunately, they've let their sexual nature define them rather than treating their urges as temptations to be mastered.

In terms of your other comments - I'm sorry that you feel that just because I want to make my own choices in life...

ie, be able to kill your own children

... I'm not a woman.

No, just not a good person to talk on behalf of women.

It's your choice to be subservient to the men in your life and a slave to your religion. I respect your choice even though It's not one I would make.

Interesting. Because I am a married woman with children, you automatically assume I am subservient to the men in my life. They would beg to differ.

And hypersexed? Is that supposed to be an insult?

No, statement of fact. Looks like I scored a hit.

I'm surprised you can say it without blushing Lucia.

Don't be.

I don't see sex as a chore that I have to suffer through in order to impregnate myself with an endless supply of children in order to feel validated as a woman and keep my ruler (oops I mean husband) happy. So yeah I guess you can call my hypersexed. Thanks.

LOL!

You don't impregnate yourself. That's not how it works.

You talk about slavery to husband and religion, yet, true slavery is when you cannot free yourself from sexual desire of inappropriate people. Your body enslaves, you Boganette, and the only way to be free of that is with supernatural help.

ZenTiger said...

Bog, you really like running away from a straight answer, don't you? I'll explain why I aren't a coward to own my beliefs some other time when you are ready to actually listen, and when the post topic is relevant.

You've also run a mile from acknowledging that your statement:

when you believe the entire purpose of our existence is to carry children and then die since we're not even worth anything once we breed.

is wrong. Sidetracking into an argument about the importance of the life of the unborn having some worth when the mothers life isn't at risk doesn't prove the above assertion by the way, or setting up a situation where a doctor has to kill one person to save another doesn't also prove the above statement either.

And what are you talking about? I wouldn't kill a 23 week old 'unborn'.. I thought you were prepared to legislate that this needs to be a fundamental right of a women, and that right be exercised that she can terminate the life within her for no other reason than she wants to, up to anytime before birth? Have you changed your mind about that?

Andrei said...

Бог which transliterates to Bog means God in Russian Zen.

It makes your replies to Boganette read a little unusually to me.

Of course it is also English slang for toilet a euphemism I avoid.

Ciaron said...

Boganette,
Why do you insist on extrapolating such nonsense from perfectly straight forward statements?

Why do you call others bigoted when you refuse to acknowledge any other view than your own

Why can't you actually address points of discussion?

Is the answer here?

Boganette said...

Fletch - someone who takes in a 'homosexual' (gosh it's just too hard to call them people isn't it?) and looks after them in order to score points in an internet debate isn't a nice person. Someone who condemns an entire group of people they've never met simply because their pastor/father/priest/a fairytale book told them to is not a nice person. People who focuses on the consentual sex acts people choose to do instead of just letting people be who they were born to be are not nice people.

But what do you care if I think you're an asshole? Why should it bother you? If you're right - then what does it matter? Why do you care if someone you think is a sinner and bla bla whatever else you think I am calls you a homophobe? Get over it.

In terms of "Tell me, where is the line between homophobia and acceptable opposition to homosexuality?" - what's the line between racism and acceptable opposition to Asians? Or African Americans? Where is the line between sexism and acceptable opposition to women? I love Maori - I just don't like them because my religion states it's wrong to be Maori. I'm not a chauvinist! I just think women shouldn't work or get access to an education because a book said that they shouldn't. There's a difference between being racist against Pacific Islanders and just not liking them because of the colour of their skin right?
I mean come on. Paint it any way you want but everyone else knows what you are.

Now Lucia - I haven't killed any children. Have a cup of tea and settle down. No I don't assume you're subserviant because you're married and have children. I know it because of your posts. You loathe making your own decisions and choices in life and cling to the idea that your husband and any other man around will guide you and protect you and your chaste innocent idealised existence. You don't feel strong enough to live your life without a supernatural being telling you to follow the orders of all the men around you. That's why I see you as a slave.

ZT - Haven't changed my mind at all on that. But there's a big difference between supporting pro-choice legislation and going around killing children. Oh that's right your simple mind can't comprehend that difference.

Ciaron - get some new material. You're out of date as usual.

ZenTiger said...

But there's a big difference between supporting pro-choice legislation and going around killing children.

Absolutely. There is also a big difference between supporting legislation to ban gay marriage and actually going around and stopping gays from marrying. Doesn't make the first any more palatable to some people.

And I didn't say you went around killing unborn babies at 23 weeks of gestation, just that you had no issue with that happening, as you've confirmed.

I.M Fletcher said...

Bog, I am sure that Dr Lively (as a Christian), didn't take in someone dying of AIDS in order to score points. I have read more of the story and it is not like that at all. Of course, being a liberal, that is the only explanation you could come to. In your book Christians and Conservatives don't have any compassion on gays unless there is something in it for them - ie, you're judging him (and me) by your own standards.

To be honest, I don't care if you think I'm an asshole. It doesn't bother me at all. I am only worried that society is creating law that panders to a certain way of life that is dangerous and dysfunctional.

To see if from my point of view - what if NAMBLA made huge inroads by electing people who would change the law so that men were allowed to have sex with underage boys (it isn't such a huge leap, by the way). That is the same way I view the laws as regards homosexuality.

As usual you are changing the narrative when you're talking about racism and homosexuality - they are two very different things. Those of different race and skin color cannot change those things about themselves, whereas I regard "homosexuality" primarily as being based around a certain series of actions or sexual conduct.

As Dr Lively says -

In summary, the true definition of homosexuality is same-gender sexual conduct. A homosexual is a person who defines himself or herself by the participation in or desire to participate in such conduct. This definition is both logical and intuitively sound.

Boganette said...

Any thread about homosexuality automatically dies when someone compares homosexuality with paedophilia. That's fucked up. And sadly predictable. If you think homos can stop being homos you think you could easily choose to be a homo. That's something you should think about before your rush to judge gay people.

Goodbye.

ZenTiger said...

I don't think the comparison was made at all. It was an example to provide some terms of reference that we could all agree upon.

The difference is subtle, but important (my simple mind can distinguish the difference, so I imagine you just processed the comment a little too quickly).

Try this instead then so you don't freak out as much:

How about the argument to lower the age of consent from 16 to 14 in the UK?

Would any person against lowering the age of consent be bigoted against 14 year olds?

I think Peter Tatchell is behind this latest move to lower the age of consent. The beauty of democracy.

“Despite what the puritans and sex-haters say, underage sex is mostly consenting, safe, and fun,” Tatchell said.

So might ordering babies over the internet. There are a few click and buy web sites available now and doing a roaring trade.

I.M Fletcher said...

Any thread about homosexuality automatically dies when someone compares homosexuality with paedophilia. That's fucked up

Is it? If any thread dies when Paedophilia is mentioned it is only because it's getting too near to the truth for the gay proponent. If homosexuality is an orientation, then why is paedophilia not? I bet the people in NAMBLA say it is.

In truth they are both just sexual preferences. You and I both find paedophila abhorrent (and rightly so), but what evidence do you have that it is not an orientation and homosexuality is? Why the difference? What if a guy is attracted to young people that way but never acts on it? Is it still his "orientation" or not?

I'm afraid that those who believe in "sexual orientation" can't have it both ways but they try to narrow down the number of 'orientations' to a select few (leaving out bestiality, paedophilia, necrophilia etc) because it would, as Dr Lively said, "draw attention to the importance of distinguishing between orientation and conduct, when a major purpose of sexual orientation theory is to legitimize and protect homosexual conduct by obscuring this distinction."

I.M Fletcher said...

ps, when I say that homosexuality is a sexual preference, I do not mean to imply that is is always consciously chosen. For example, there was a study done last year by a University of Otago research, Elizabeth Wells, that found that people who described themselves as homosexual or bisexual came from disturbed backgrounds.


New Zealanders who identify themselves as homosexual or bisexual, or who have had a same-sex encounter or relationship, tend to come from more disturbed backgrounds, a University of Otago researcher has found.

Information extracted from 13,000 face-to-face interviews clearly showed those with same-sexual or bisexual orientation were more likely to have experienced negative events in childhood, Associate Prof Elisabeth Wells said yesterday.

People who had experienced sexual abuse as children were three times more likely to identity themselves as homosexual or bisexual than those who had not experienced abuse, she said. Also, the more adverse events someone experienced in childhood, the more likely they were to belong to one of the "non-exclusively heterosexual" groups.

Associations between adverse events and sexuality group were found for sexual assault, rape, violence to the child and for witnessing violence in the home.

Other adverse events, such as the sudden death of a loved one, serious childhood illness or accident, were only slightly associated with non-heterosexual identity or behaviour.

Laurie Fleming said...

The truth, the whole truth, but not necessarily nothing but. For a start, her name is Elisabeth Wells. And she goes on to say, "Even so, the majority of people from disturbed backgrounds are heterosexual in behaviour and identity." With only 0.8% of the 13,000 interviewed, those homosexuals who had been abused as children is getting pretty marginal, and close to statistically insignificant.

As for your conflating paedophilia and homosexuality together, you are missing the point. The whole point of this thread was about treating children as commodities, yet you miss the whole point of the difference between paedophilia: child sexual abuse; necrophilia: sexual attraction to corpses; bestiality: sexual attraction to animals; and human sexual preference/alignment. You may see these as the equivalent; however the majority of the rest of society does not.

No-one is legally allowed sexual contact below the age of sixteen. Below that age, it is sexual abuse. Above 16, it is not. The legal system sets up these stark barriers, because it can't make allowances for personal differences. Even so, assuming a sub-sixteen-year-old could assume informed consent, they are still to young to make those sorts of decisions with significantly older people. Some countries allow sexual contact for children from twelve/thirteen, but only where the age difference is no more than four years. I still wouldn't be that keen on this, but I could see how it would work.

I.M Fletcher said...

Laurie, nowhere does it say that only 0.8% of the 13,000 were interviewed. "13,000 face to face interviews" is exactly that: 13,000. You're making up figures out of whole cloth now.

As for linking paedophilia and homosexuality, I think it is fair for me to do so. They are both sexual preferences. The fact that society frowns upon some of the orientations is my point; how can they frown upon anything that is a person's "orientation" that the person has no control over but it born that way? Isn't it still a paedophile's "orientation" even if he never acts on it?

There is no proof that a homosexual inclination and a paedophilic inclination are not both orientations - or that one is an orientation and the other isn't. The fact that society frowns upon one and not the other is of no nevermind. They both used to be seen as dysfunctional by the medical profession.

It should be noted that homosexuality was not removed from that dysfunctional list because of new evidence saying otherwise, but because of the actions of activists, pure and simple, who disrupted APA conferences and basically made a nuisance of themselves until it was changed. And then four years later, the Medical Journal Aspects of Human Sexuality reported a survey showing "69 percent of psychiatrists disagreed with the vote and still considered homosexuality a disorder."

Laurie Fleming said...

Yes it does. Have a look here: http://www.otago.ac.nz/news/news/otago009976.html

If you only ever take one source of information from the internet, you'll constantly be underinformed.

And there's this: http://xkcd.net/386

You can say they're sexual preferences as much as you like. It doesn't make it so.

I.M Fletcher said...

I had a look. It doesn't say that only 0.8% of the 13,000 were interviewed, it says that out of the 13,000 interviews that 0.8% identified as homosexual - which I guess is 104 people. 0.6% identified as bisexual (78 people) and 0.3% something else (39 people).

That suggests to me a couple of things.

1) It well and truly debunks Kinsey's myth that 10 percent of all people are gay. I think we'd be lucky to have one of two percent in the country.

2) It is still significant that this small sample of 221 people (gay, bi, or other) were more likely to have abused or had disturbed childhoods that the rest of the people taking part in the study. Coincidence? I don't think so.

I.M Fletcher said...

...oh, and a third point. Why is society and it's laws pandering to the indulgences of such a small section of the population?

It's all about Political Correctness, or (to give it the true name) Cultural Marxism.

Laurie Fleming said...

From the Bill of Rights Act, 1990:
Non-discrimination and minority rights
You have the right to freedom from discrimination on the grounds of sex, marital status, religious belief, ethical belief, colour, race, ethnic or national origins, disability, age, political opinion, employment status, family status, and sexual orientation.

So minorities like you (and you have several: religious belief, ethical belief, political opinion) have the right to be free from discrimination. You aren't free from criticism, however.

Lucia Maria said...

Is that a threat?

Laurie Fleming said...

No.

Ciaron said...

You aren't free from criticism, however.

Interesting, seeing as some of the above criticism could be more accurately termed verbal abuse if it occurred face to face...

Laurie Fleming said...

Just from this thread - verbal abuse, or happy debate?

"I condemn your parents. They should have strangled you at birth."

"The hypersexed cannot think any other way."

"And I think you're a deluded self centered tramp who lacks in comprehension & intellect".

That last one was from you. Still happy with that comment? Would you truly say that to her face? No matter what you think of her, and it's palpably clear, are you hiding behind a keyboard, or would you say that in public?

ZenTiger said...

The nature of blogs is that it is far too easy to succumb to a good verbal lashing instead of staying on point. Let's try anyway.

ZenTiger said...

Fletch, my 2 cents worth to your question:

Why is society and it's laws pandering to the indulgences of such a small section of the population?

Whilst their are extremists of every stripe, such as we find in both religion and the gay movement, I think a large part of this is simply that the gay lobby has successfully argued that laws that apply to them need to be based on consent, and not any particular view of morality.

If any number of people consent to engage in any form of behaviour, then the law (theoretically) has no place.

This means sodomy is no longer illegal, gay couples can be open about their relationship, polygamy is fine, and adultery is fine providing all parties stand for it.

In general, founding much of our laws on the principle of consent seems like a good basic principle to me.

In short, I think this brings more benefits than negatives but it does severely undermine morality, but what I mean by that I will save for a different post.

Consent supposedly means no people will be hurt. However, I think that premise is questionable, although that too is a topic for another day.

Assuming the law does not prohibit any form of consensual action, then the next step for many people is to ensure whatever situation they are in is formerly recognised by the state as being equal to the norm. This is the area that is causing friction.

If a women gets pregnant naturally at age 66, you just have to accept it (it would be a miracle in itself). If they deliberately get themselves pregnant, via IVF for example using some other mother's egg, I think it is perfectly reasonable to question the morality of such an action.

Laurie's quote appears to say that a person cannot be denied anything they want on the basis of age though, so ordering up a baby even if they are a 66 year old single mother with no relatives is supposedly no-one's concern until such time the child is proven to be mistreated. Equally though he assures us of our right to criticise the action, although many people view criticism as a type of discrimination, to be challenged.

ZenTiger said...

As much as consent is important, the government uses other forms of law making that are based on the fact that consent is irrelevant. We can't consent to drive at 200kph, it just isn't allowed, even if the road is empty. Furthermore, the government can impose quotas and regulation on most human activities, including taking a portion of our income, wether we consent or not.

It's an issue I've being puzzling over as I try to figure out a principle-centred approach to what the State should and shouldn't have authority over, and what sets the levels of morality for a culture.

This really struck home for me watching a program about women being kidnapped and forced to marry their kidnapper in Chechnya.

Ultimately, due to family pressure, the women in the film all "consented" to the marriage and seemed resigned to the fact that this is part of Chechnyan life. Indeed, imposition of "rules" from Russia meant to dissuade this behaviour just encouraged the elders to continue supporting marriages through kidnapping. The important thing for me was that technically every-one involved consented to this - the girl, her parents and siblings, the parents and relations of the kidnapper and ultimately the people that investigated the incident and accepted the girl's word she was freely saying yes to the marriage.

It indicates that, irrespective of the laws, our culture can change to accept any sort of behaviour to the point that we refuse to see it is destructive. Consent, whilst a good guiding principle, can itself be warped.

In summary, I think there is a very new form of morality pervading our culture.

On the plus side, gay people are far less likely to be persecuted (and I don't want to live in that kind of society, just as I don't want to live in a society where Christians are persecuted) but there also seems to be a drive to place individual desires above ethical behaviour. I wont describe what I think those categories are, because I haven't quite decided yet.

On another note, Laurie assures us that Christians are free from discrimination according to the Bill of Rights. I suspect this protection is on borrowed time.

Ciaron said...

That last one was from you. Still happy with that comment? Would you truly say that to her face? No matter what you think of her, and it's palpably clear, are you hiding behind a keyboard, or would you say that in public?

Absolutely, seeing as she had just called me a bigot based on two comments, which she had totally failed to comprehend or address, and further on, she accuses me of falsifying my qualifications. But mainly I said it as a
"can you handle your own medicine" tactic (which is why but lets not form lifelong opinions upon a couple of blog comments. followed), which clearly she can't.

And I struggle to see why you are so critical of me when Her posts are so full of vitriol, condescension, evasion palpable hatred.

Ciaron said...

@ Zen,
It seams to be an earthly constant. Just when we think we've set up a good system, elements chip away at it, find loop holes, redefine concepts until you can't actually do what you set out to in the first place... wages of sin I guess?

Redbaiter said...

Laurie is just another Progressive who couldn't argue any point honestly even if he wanted to. As exampled in this thread, where he resorts to the same old same old allegations of verbal abuse from Conservatives when he and his friends LRO and Boganette have made the most vile and cowardly allegations against everybody else.

Laurie has had his own go too, but as you can see, all he can list in his complaint are the relatively mild words of his iedological opponents.

You cannot argue with these people. They have no morality, they have no standards, and there are no lines they will not cross. They have no shame. No ability to criticize themselves. They therefore can say anything they want at any time and change their position constantly. Its like grappling with a column of smoke.

Combine this with their absolute incomprehension regarding Conservative concepts, and their confusion arriving from their own extremely limited perceptions, and it all adds up to a big waste of time.

Liberals/ Progressives like Laurie and the Boganette cannot be argued with. They are barbarians with heads stuffed full of Progressive doctrine, with no room left for reason, and they are destroying our civilization.

They do not want to talk. They hate us. They only wish one thing, and that is our destruction and our extinction. Its time we realized that and began to fight, not talk.

Laurie Fleming said...

Redbaiter is just another sad old pathetic bastard who couldn't argue any point honestly even if he wanted to. As exampled in this thread, where he resorts to the same old same old allegations of verbal abuse from intelligent people when he and his friends Ciaron and Lucia Maria have made the most vile and cowardly allegations against everybody else.

Redbaiter has had his own go too, but as you can see, all he can list in his complaint are the relatively mild words of his iedological opponents.

You cannot argue with these people. They have no morality, they have no standards, and there are no lines they will not cross. They have no shame. No ability to criticize themselves. They therefore can say anything they want at any time and change their position constantly. Its like grappling with a column of smoke.

Combine this with their absolute incomprehension regarding reasonable and sensible concepts, and their confusion arriving from their own extremely limited perceptions, and it all adds up to a big waste of time.

Ideologues like Redbaiter cannot be argued with. They are barbarians with heads stuffed full of regressive doctrine, with no room left for reason, and they are destroying our civilization.

They do not want to talk. They hate us. They only wish one thing, and that is our destruction and our extinction. Its time we realized that and began to mock, not talk.

Ciaron said...

Is that all you got?

Laurie Fleming said...

What's your point? Is Redbaiter like your crazy old incontinent uncle who sits in the corner coming out with phrases which if anyone else said them would result in their being pilloried, but because you can't be arsed you just let him keep on doing it? You go on about saying abortion is evil, but let him say things like, "They should have strangled you at birth."

There's no place where that even starts being acceptable. Even here.

I.M Fletcher said...

Its time we realized that and began to mock, not talk

That is a big part of the problem. It's straight out of Alinksy's Rules For Radicals.

‘Ridicule,’ said Alinksy, ‘is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage.’

It's a tactic that Obama used often in his campaign. He even taught Alinsky workshops while he was a community organizer in Chicago.

Ciaron said...

My point is your mocking is pretty piss weak. You have offered no valid reason why we should think the topic is just & why our concers for the child are unfounded. And as for the tone of the exchange, I think you'll find that it was set by Boganette.

ZenTiger said...

Laurie, don't make the mistake of judging everyone you disagree with in equal measure based on the comments of one person.

As for monitoring the standard of comments, we may delete comments at our discretion, but something we try to avoid doing. I could have as much cause to delete some of your coments and Boganette's as Redbaiters on that basis.

The comments stand or fall on their own merits. Focus on the issues if you say you are bigger than that, you may enjoy yourself more (FWIW).

BTW, I don't think you answered my question about a 66 year old women deliberately taking another women's egg and impregnating herself because she never got around to having children. Is this one of those many cases where you would say the state, and people have no right to stop her and anyone who wants to help her achieve this goal be legally allowed to do so?

Do you think adoptions should be illegal for age 545 and over, like in the Ukraine, or age 60,70, or 80? Would preventing anyone from adopting on the basis of age be simply a case of human rights abuse under the BOR?

ZenTiger said...

Oops, age 45 and over (not 545) :)

Redbaiter said...

"I could have as much cause to delete some of your coments and Boganette's as Redbaiters on that basis."

No Zen. Please do not let him manipulate you that way. The old moral equivalency strategy. My reply to LRO was just a half humourous off the cuff response to his allegation that I only had one brain cell. These are not the issues as well you know, but more importantly, Laurie knows even more so.

The real issue is not the superficiality of those kind of comments, but the deeply ingrained hatred and intolerance that characterises every morsel of what Laurie and Boganette say here. They say it in all seriousness. That they couch it in "approved" PC language makes it even more cold and deliberate. That what they say is basically a reflection of government/ mainstream policy makes it even more disturbing.

Make no mistake, these people preach a deep and dangerous commitment to hate, and their desire is to eliminate us. If you think that solid expression of hate and the subliminal wish for our extermination is the equal of anything I have ever said then we're along way from agreeing on anything about politics in NZ under the rule of the Progressives.

You need to be more aware of what these people want, and who they really are. They do not ever come in peace, and they do not bring anything good. They are the foot soldiers of the annihilators.

Laurie Fleming said...

Zen (can I call you Zen?), I judge Redbaiter strongly, but I shouldn't bother: he's been coming up with identical twaddle for as long as my internet memory can stretch. What does "foot soldiers of the annihilators" mean? He is continually completely nonsensical and obnoxious at the same time.

As for the 66-year-old - I think that's crazy. I could contemplate situations where it is justifiable, but any legal reasons would not come under the cover of human rights: the child's rights trump the parents. I don't believe it is possible anyway in this country.

I don't think it is a reason to negate the topic of this thread (going back a long, long way!): the baby will have two parents who love him (because we know no different, and shouldn't base any criticism of the adoption and surrogacy on hearsay), with at least one who will see him to adult-hood.

ZenTiger said...

Laurie, I have no problem with ZT or Zen. Thanks for asking.

My question about the 66 year old mother was not to negate the topic of the thread but to understand where your opinion starts to vary, what the line was. I find it interesting that child's rights somehow trump the parents rights in this case (and how rights might be enforced in that case).

Something for me to think about.

As for Red, I understand exactly what Redbaiter means, so I don't find his phraseology nonsensical, and I have a high tolerance for his obnoxiousness. His "identical twaddle" may simply be that he's been arguing against the same perceived decline as far as your memory can stretch.

Perhaps I can explain it this way:

I've seen and heard many an evil thing delivered with quiet and soft words. Sometimes the more apparently physical and violent reaction seems so much worse, but may merely be something of the same force delivered in a different medium.

Boganette does the same thing - react violently and abusively to an idea she finds abhorrent.

Others utilise, either knowingly or unknowingly, the tactics Alinsky codified.

The more you sympathize with the view, the more likely you are to overlook misbehaviour in one area in comparison to another - that's a human trait.

This is not a comment about the content of this particular thread, just a general observation.

@Red: Have you read the book "Architects of the Culture of Death" by De Marco and Wiker? It's a fairly good read.

Redbaiter said...

"@Red: Have you read the book "Architects of the Culture of Death" by De Marco and Wiker? It's a fairly good read."

No I have not Zen, but I will seek it out. I read many books, or should I say listen to them. Most of the books I have today are audio books. I do a fair bit of traveling, and listening to audio books is an ideal way to expand your reading horizons and use up otherwise dead time.

BTW, I just read an excellent new article by Mark Steyn which in principle touches upon what is being discussed here.

http://www.newcriterion.com/articles.cfm/Dependence-Day-6753

ZenTiger said...

Excellent article.

Laurie Fleming said...

It would appear that I was wrong, or misremembered, or something. Here's a local, recent, article which points out that the Bill of Rights does hold sway: http://www.stuff.co.nz/waikato-times/features/waikato-focus/4219850/For-the-love-of-kids

The point here again is that the children are much loved - which is, again, I attest, the point of this thread. If the children are truly loved and brought up well, the other attributes of their parentage (age, sexual orientation et al) fade into the background.

Andrei said...

If the children are truly loved and brought up well, the other attributes of their parentage (age, sexual orientation et al) fade into the background.

Good talking point but a load of bollocks. I have four kids and I know that my role and their mothers role in their upbringing is different and complimentary.

And I also know that New Zealand prisons are full of men bought up without fathers - I believe the number is 95% of prisoners meet that criteria.

This is a bold social experiment we are undertaking on the most vulnerable to appease a vocal, over privileged and self absorbed minority.

ZenTiger said...

If the children are truly loved and brought up well, the other attributes of their parentage (age, sexual orientation et al) fade into the background.

I think I agree with Andrei. This might be one incredibly important criterion, but this thread is not about focusing on one thing to the exclusion of all others.

You've found a link to prove that age is no barrier, with full protection from the BOR even to the point the quest for a child becomes more selfish or at least self-centred than thinking about the child. I think the story you cited (age 53 and two stable parents) is fine, but at age 66 and single? No - my "its all about the children" BS meter starts hitting the red zone.

But to take the idea that wealthy, doting, loving parents can procure a child by any means providing they love them fully and can give them a good "high quality" life ... well, lets set an upper boundary on the debate that we might agree upon:

For the love of kids

Ciaron said...

If the children are truly loved and brought up well, the other attributes of their parentage (age, sexual orientation et al) fade into the background.

Sure, but only if they live their lives in a bubble, severed from the outside world.

Post a Comment

Please be respectful. Foul language and personal attacks may get your comment deleted without warning. Contact us if your comment doesn't appear - the spam filter may have grabbed it.