Sunday, February 6, 2011

Fletch Baby Moas

Oh dear...

Coming hard on the heels of the story of Elton John and 'husband' having a baby, it seems our own celeb Anika Moa and 'wife' (whom Moa first saw performing at a burlesque show) are expecting twins, according to the Herald On Sunday
Not one, but two bundles of joy are on the way for songstress Anika Moa and her Australian wife Angela Fyfe.
The couple had been attempting to conceive through anonymous sperm donation without success but are now thrilled because Fyfe is pregnant with twins, a close friend has told the Herald on Sunday.
And who is the father sperm donor? Turns out it's probably Anika's brother.
The donor is understood to be Moa's brother and the twins are due in August.
Don't know what to say now; of course I will probably be called names for being critical of Moa and wife, but really it's sad and distressing to see morals being chipped away at and an "anything goes" mentality taking their place. It also seems that if you're a personality with even a modicum of fame, you're given more leeway when it comes to the media accepting the things you want to do, especially when it comes to homosexuality -  the sacred cow which they dare not speak against for fear of being seen as "intolerant".

21 comment(s):

Psycho Milt said...

It also seems that if you're a personality with even a modicum of fame, you're given more leeway when it comes to the media accepting the things you want to do...

You mean, the media "accept" celebs doing some entirely legal thing that lots of non-famous people do and isn't really anybody's business but theirs? It's just incomprehensible...

ZenTiger said...

Hi PM, I think you missed the point. If it's legal, it doesn't necessarily make it right, and the example published by the media, who seem to think it's their duty to poke their noses into everyone's private business (incomprehensible) brings the issue out for discussion.

Here's another example of discussing people's private business: female circumcision. Is that a no-go area by your same reasoning?

David Winter said...

It also seems that if you're a personality with even a modicum of fame, you're given more leeway when it comes to the media accepting the things you want to do...

So would should the media say when famous(ish) gay couples have a baby? I'd prefer nothing...

Zen, I don't think PM said it was nobody's business becauseit was private. In your example someone is harmed, it's far to see who is harmed by Anika Moa having a baby.

ZenTiger said...

I don't think the issue of harm in itself is suitable criteria, because that can be argued many ways.

If the brother was the sperm donor, then I thought there is a greater chance of passing on recessive genes, if you wanted to look at it that way.

Mind you, my point was that some supposedly private affairs might be reasonable to discuss in public, irrespective of whether a law is broken or not. Is a certain level of harm the only criteria we should apply, or is there any reason to consider other factors? I haven't really put much thought into it until now, but I suspect it can't be quite as cut and dried as we might like.

Psycho Milt said...

If the brother was the sperm donor, then I thought there is a greater chance of passing on recessive genes, if you wanted to look at it that way.

Actually, I think you've got a good example right there. If Anika Moa were to impregnate herself with her brother's sperm, the media treatment of that story would be very different - probably more along the lines IM Fletcher would prefer to see in this case.

Lucia Maria said...

The baby is being harmed by bring brought into an unnatural family grouping, where her mother is having sex with her father's sister. That'll stuff anyone up over the long term.

Andrei said...

I don't know about anybody else but the very idea of fertilizing multiple embryos in a petri dish and selecting one or two (on the basis of who knows what criteria) to be allowed to come to full term gives me the heebie jeebies regardless of the motivation.

I think this is sheer wickedness in a society which has abandoned God and is in the process of failing.

Our poor children!

David Winter said...

Well Lucia,

There's little evidence that children born to or adopted by LGBT parents do any worse then their peers.

What I find more interesting in your answer is the idea the child is being harmed. Are you saying this child is better of not being born?

Andrei said...

There's little evidence that children born to or adopted by LGBT parents do any worse then their peers

There is little evidence of anything given that this travesty has only existed for twenty odd years and enough time hasn't passed to make any definitive statement.

Such surveys that have been done have used self selected alternative families of better than average means and relative privilege compared vast majority and thus distort the picture with regards to educational achievements but the numbers in these surveys, produced by activists are small in any case.

What I do know ans is well documented is that adopted children as a rule do less well and in particular many struggle with the fact their natural parents abandoned them, particularly in later life.

And this is troubling - it is also well documented that if they meet an opposite sex biological parent in adulthood it is not uncommon for incestuous relationships to develop.

I personally knew a fellow who committed suicide as a result of this very scenario.

Lucia Maria said...

David,

Once a child exists, of course it is better that he or she is born.

You might want to read this article by Dawn Stefanowicz on what the effects were on her, growing up with a gay dad, who exposed her to many explicit sexual practises, lovers, and various gay scenes while a young child.

She says: "Can you imagine being forced to tolerate unstable relationships and diverse sexual practices from a young age and how this affected my development? My gender identity, psychological well-being, and peer relationships were affected. Unfortunately, it was not until my father, his sexual partners and my mother had died, was I free to speak publicly about my experiences."

Note how she didn't feel free to relate her experiences until her parents and her father's sexual partners had died.

David Winter said...

growing up with a gay dad, who exposed her to many explicit sexual practises, lovers, and various gay scenes while a young child.

Is the most important part of that sentence before or after the comma?

Lucia Maria said...

David,

They go together. Given how hypersexed homosexuals are, they would have trouble sheltering their children from their lifestyle, even if they thought they needed to.

David Winter said...

Lucia,

No.

Lucia Maria said...

Sorry, David. Just because you say it's a no doesn't make it so. You can't change reality by denying it.

As an example related to this issue, homosexuals think it is ok to teach children about homosexuality, as this press release from Britain shows. As they say: "Stonewall are very keen to get primary-school children thinking about homosexuality. Anywhere else, such a 'catch them young' approach would be condemned as grooming. But those who believe that small children can be 'gay' seem to be keen on sexualising them."

David Winter said...

I can't change reality by denying it anymore than you create reality by declaring it. "Homosexual" is not the same as "sex crazed maniac". That you seem to think like this is bizarre and a bit sad.

Lucia Maria said...

From the horse's mouth, so to speak.

“I feel sorry for straight men. The only reason women will have sex with them is that sex is the price they are willing to pay for a relationship with a man, which is what they want. They want a boyfriend and then they want commitment.
"Of course, a lot of women will deny this and say, 'Oh no, but I love sex, I love it!' But do they go around having it the way that gay men do?
“Gay men are the perfect acid test. If they want to get their rocks off, they go into a park where they know they can do it.”


Read more: Stephen Fry about women and sex in comparison to gay men and sex

Lucia Maria said...

Who, but a sex-crazed maniac would go to a park for sex?

Lucia Maria said...

But wait, there's more ...

From Gay marriage and homosexuality: Some medical comments

A. There are very high rates of sexual promiscuity among the homosexual population with short duration of even 'committed' relationships.

* A study of homosexual men shows that more than 75% of homosexual men admitted to having sex with more than 100 different males in their lifetime: approximately 15% claimed to have had 100-249 sex partners, 17% claimed 250-499, 15% claimed 500-999 and 28% claimed more than 1,000 lifetime sexual partners. (Bell AP, Weinberg MS. Homosexualities. New York 1978).

* Promiscuity among lesbian women is less extreme, but is still higher than among heterosexual women. Many 'lesbian' women also have sex with men. Lesbian women were more than 4 times as likely to have had more than 50 lifetime male partners than heterosexual women. (Fethers K et al. Sexually transmitted infections and risk behaviours in women who have sex with women. Sexually Transmitted Infections 2000; 76: 345-9.)

* Far higher rates of promiscuity are observed even within 'committed' gay relationships than in heterosexual marriage: In Holland, male homosexual relationships last, on average, 1.5 years, and gay men have an average of eight partners a year outside of their supposedly “committed” relationships. (Xiridou M, et al. The contribution of steady and casual partnerships to the incidence of HIV infection among homosexual men in Amsterdam. AIDS. 2003; 17: 1029-38.) Gay men have sex with someone other than their primary partner in 66% of relationships within the first year, rising to 90% of relationships after five years. (Harry J. Gay Couples. New York. 1984)

* In an online survey among nearly 8,000 homosexuals, 71% of same-sex relationships lasted less than eight years. Only 9% of all same-sex relationships lasted longer than 16 years. (2003-2004 Gay & Lesbian Consumer Online Census; www.glcensus.org)

* The high rates of promiscuity are not surprising: Gay authors admit that 'gay liberation was founded … on a sexual brotherhood of promiscuity.' (Rotello G. Sexual Ecology. New York 1998)

David Winter said...

Sorry Lucia,

But even if one were to accept your statistics on face value, you'd have a long way to get from "on average more promiscuous than heterosexuals" to inherently 'hypersexed' and bound to cause harm to children.

Ciaron said...

But it's ok to make that leap re smacking?

Lucia Maria said...

David,

More promiscuous = hypersexed.

There should also be an order of magnitute applied to promiscuity which includes that which is not normal to the species, ie same-sex sex.

What causes harm to children is bringing them up in an environment where they become sexually aware at a younger point than they can emotionally cope with.

This is why people that are abused as children have such terrible problems, why they act out sexually at younger ages than normal, and why they are more likely to become homosexual.

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.