Two Australian couples stopped from leaving Thailand with surrogate babies

[seajae]

stopping same sex couples from taking babies out of the country is good.i have no problem with people having a same sex partner but do not believe they should come here looking to get children they cannot have naturally.basicly same sex partners cannot have babies with each other and therefore cannot have children.i am not religious at all but do believe in the natural order of life.

Do you also have a problem with infertile heterosexual couples having children? Or are you just a homophobic bigot?

Homophobic is a term introduced by gays in an attempt to belittle or pressure anyone that has a different opinion to theirs be it about children or marriage. Everyone is entitled to live their own lives as they see fit, if they prefer their own sex then that is their choice and no-one can take that away from them. One thing they must also accept is that it is physically impossible for them to have their own children by each other, by going into their relationship this needs to be a part of what they want. If they have children through previous hetero relationships then they are able to fulfill their child raising problems but to claim they are entitled to invitro fertilization is a fallacy. This is not the same as hetero couples as they do have the required body parts to have children and are stopped only to a technicality that can be overcome by science, being either both women or both men gay couples were never meant to be able to reproduce. My eldest daughter is gay and I have had many gay friends over the years but I do not believe they have a right to this type of endeavour, it does not make me a "homophobe", just someone with an opinion . Trying to make people out to be something they are not to push your own bias is the problem, if you honestly believe you are entitled then try giving sound reasons that 2 same sex people should be able to reproduce even though it is physically impossible due to not have the correct reproductive organs between them and stop belittling anyone with a different opinion. It does a great dis-service to those gay couples that accept that they are not able to reproduce due to their partner choice and have chosen their partners due entirely to the love of each other.

First try to get your facts straight. The term "homophobic" was created by George Weinberg, a straight psychotherapist.

And for people who "prefer their own sex" is not "their choice"; it's not a choice at all. It's an intrinsic characteristic.

As for "both women or both men gay couples were never meant to be able to reproduce", what do you mean by "meant"? Do you believe in some invisible sky fairy who decides what is "meant" and what isn't "meant"?

You write "try giving sound reasons that 2 same sex people should be able to reproduce even though it is physically impossible". How about changing that to "try giving sound reasons that 2 different sex people should be able to reproduce even though the invisible sky fairy has resolved that for them it is to be physically impossible".

However, thank you for patronising me by writing "It does a great dis-service to those gay couples that accept that they are not able to reproduce due to their partner choice and have chosen their partners due entirely to the love of each other." I happen to be half of one of those "gay couples that accept that they are not able to reproduce". Personally, I am happy not to have children. However, if others feel that their lives would be enriched by raising and nurturing a child or children, who am I (or anybody else) to say no? Given the sh*tty ways that many children of straight couples and single parents are brought up, I would posit it's far better for children to be brought up by a couple who love, care for, and nurture the child irrespective of their sexuality and gender than to be brought up by uncaring individuals or couples of any sexual orientation.

yes it was but it has been hijacked by those gays that want to try to shame people into accepting their personal views, just because people disgree it does not make them homophobes, people like you that label people homophobes because they disagree with you are the problem as you help create the animosity between everyone. You say you have accepted you cant have kids with your partner but still keep trying to create conflict, really well done, seems to me you are the bigot here. As for the sky fairy, if you are not aware it takes male semen and female eggs to create babies unless you are telling us that you have discovered a new method, I know of a few couples that have used gay males and gay females to concieve, so there is a way if they really want to go down that path or adoption.

I am not patronizing anyone, you are doing that all by yourself, try thinking rationally instead of with your bias, genuine couples cherish each other or are you in a miserable relationship and need to lash out to convince yourself its good, try looking at yourself before criticizing others. Produce a decent argument instead of your sky fairy crap and I will listen to you, your answer is truly pathetric to say the least.

[kimamey]

stopping same sex couples from taking babies out of the country is good.i have no problem with people having a same sex partner but do not believe they should come here looking to get children they cannot have naturally.basicly same sex partners cannot have babies with each other and therefore cannot have children.i am not religious at all but do believe in the natural order of life.

I'm assuming that means you don't agree with mixed sex couples coming here or anywhere else looking to get children as well.

[orosee]

stopping same sex couples from taking babies out of the country is good.i have no problem with people having a same sex partner but do not believe they should come here looking to get children they cannot have naturally.basicly same sex partners cannot have babies with each other and therefore cannot have children.i am not religious at all but do believe in the natural order of life.

Do you also have a problem with infertile heterosexual couples having children? Or are you just a homophobic bigot?

Homophobic is a term introduced by gays in an attempt to belittle or pressure anyone that has a different opinion to theirs be it about children or marriage. Everyone is entitled to live their own lives as they see fit, if they prefer their own sex then that is their choice and no-one can take that away from them. One thing they must also accept is that it is physically impossible for them to have their own children by each other, by going into their relationship this needs to be a part of what they want. If they have children through previous hetero relationships then they are able to fulfill their child raising problems but to claim they are entitled to invitro fertilization is a fallacy. This is not the same as hetero couples as they do have the required body parts to have children and are stopped only to a technicality that can be overcome by science, being either both women or both men gay couples were never meant to be able to reproduce. My eldest daughter is gay and I have had many gay friends over the years but I do not believe they have a right to this type of endeavour, it does not make me a "homophobe", just someone with an opinion . Trying to make people out to be something they are not to push your own bias is the problem, if you honestly believe you are entitled then try giving sound reasons that 2 same sex people should be able to reproduce even though it is physically impossible due to not have the correct reproductive organs between them and stop belittling anyone with a different opinion. It does a great dis-service to those gay couples that accept that they are not able to reproduce due to their partner choice and have chosen their partners due entirely to the love of each other.

First try to get your facts straight. The term "homophobic" was created by George Weinberg, a straight psychotherapist.

And for people who "prefer their own sex" is not "their choice"; it's not a choice at all. It's an intrinsic characteristic.

As for "both women or both men gay couples were never meant to be able to reproduce", what do you mean by "meant"? Do you believe in some invisible sky fairy who decides what is "meant" and what isn't "meant"?

You write "try giving sound reasons that 2 same sex people should be able to reproduce even though it is physically impossible". How about changing that to "try giving sound reasons that 2 different sex people should be able to reproduce even though the invisible sky fairy has resolved that for them it is to be physically impossible".

However, thank you for patronising me by writing "It does a great dis-service to those gay couples that accept that they are not able to reproduce due to their partner choice and have chosen their partners due entirely to the love of each other." I happen to be half of one of those "gay couples that accept that they are not able to reproduce". Personally, I am happy not to have children. However, if others feel that their lives would be enriched by raising and nurturing a child or children, who am I (or anybody else) to say no? Given the sh*tty ways that many children of straight couples and single parents are brought up, I would posit it's far better for children to be brought up by a couple who love, care for, and nurture the child irrespective of their sexuality and gender than to be brought up by uncaring individuals or couples of any sexual orientation.

yes it was but it has been hijacked by those gays that want to try to shame people into accepting their personal views, just because people disgree it does not make them homophobes, people like you that label people homophobes because they disagree with you are the problem as you help create the animosity between everyone. You say you have accepted you cant have kids with your partner but still keep trying to create conflict, really well done, seems to me you are the bigot here. As for the sky fairy, if you are not aware it takes male semen and female eggs to create babies unless you are telling us that you have discovered a new method, I know of a few couples that have used gay males and gay females to concieve, so there is a way if they really want to go down that path or adoption.

I am not patronizing anyone, you are doing that all by yourself, try thinking rationally instead of with your bias, genuine couples cherish each other or are you in a miserable relationship and need to lash out to convince yourself its good, try looking at yourself before criticizing others. Produce a decent argument instead of your sky fairy crap and I will listen to you, your answer is truly pathetric to say the least.

I think you misread something. The thread was hijacked by a series of people who categorically denied gays the right to parenthood based on fuzzy principles such as "natural order" (but probably meaning "God's will") and "being normal".

Such comments must have a response, if only to show that not everyone subscribes to this path of thinking. One poster basically said that he'd prefer a child raised by a convicted pedophile rather than a normal gay couple. If that's not homophobic, then what is?

As for myself, nature has tried to kill me many times and without the unnatural help of doctors and medicine I would have been dead before the age of 10. So screw nature's "intent", man is a social & technological animal that is not constrained exclusively by natural order anymore. People who see children only as the result of reproduction rather then vessels to be filled with love, might disagree.

[khunken]

Do you also have a problem with infertile heterosexual couples having children? Or are you just a homophobic bigot?

Homophobic is a term introduced by gays in an attempt to belittle or pressure anyone that has a different opinion to theirs be it about children or marriage. Everyone is entitled to live their own lives as they see fit, if they prefer their own sex then that is their choice and no-one can take that away from them. One thing they must also accept is that it is physically impossible for them to have their own children by each other, by going into their relationship this needs to be a part of what they want. If they have children through previous hetero relationships then they are able to fulfill their child raising problems but to claim they are entitled to invitro fertilization is a fallacy. This is not the same as hetero couples as they do have the required body parts to have children and are stopped only to a technicality that can be overcome by science, being either both women or both men gay couples were never meant to be able to reproduce. My eldest daughter is gay and I have had many gay friends over the years but I do not believe they have a right to this type of endeavour, it does not make me a "homophobe", just someone with an opinion . Trying to make people out to be something they are not to push your own bias is the problem, if you honestly believe you are entitled then try giving sound reasons that 2 same sex people should be able to reproduce even though it is physically impossible due to not have the correct reproductive organs between them and stop belittling anyone with a different opinion. It does a great dis-service to those gay couples that accept that they are not able to reproduce due to their partner choice and have chosen their partners due entirely to the love of each other.

First try to get your facts straight. The term "homophobic" was created by George Weinberg, a straight psychotherapist.

And for people who "prefer their own sex" is not "their choice"; it's not a choice at all. It's an intrinsic characteristic.

As for "both women or both men gay couples were never meant to be able to reproduce", what do you mean by "meant"? Do you believe in some invisible sky fairy who decides what is "meant" and what isn't "meant"?

You write "try giving sound reasons that 2 same sex people should be able to reproduce even though it is physically impossible". How about changing that to "try giving sound reasons that 2 different sex people should be able to reproduce even though the invisible sky fairy has resolved that for them it is to be physically impossible".

However, thank you for patronising me by writing "It does a great dis-service to those gay couples that accept that they are not able to reproduce due to their partner choice and have chosen their partners due entirely to the love of each other." I happen to be half of one of those "gay couples that accept that they are not able to reproduce". Personally, I am happy not to have children. However, if others feel that their lives would be enriched by raising and nurturing a child or children, who am I (or anybody else) to say no? Given the sh*tty ways that many children of straight couples and single parents are brought up, I would posit it's far better for children to be brought up by a couple who love, care for, and nurture the child irrespective of their sexuality and gender than to be brought up by uncaring individuals or couples of any sexual orientation.

yes it was but it has been hijacked by those gays that want to try to shame people into accepting their personal views, just because people disgree it does not make them homophobes, people like you that label people homophobes because they disagree with you are the problem as you help create the animosity between everyone. You say you have accepted you cant have kids with your partner but still keep trying to create conflict, really well done, seems to me you are the bigot here. As for the sky fairy, if you are not aware it takes male semen and female eggs to create babies unless you are telling us that you have discovered a new method, I know of a few couples that have used gay males and gay females to concieve, so there is a way if they really want to go down that path or adoption.

I am not patronizing anyone, you are doing that all by yourself, try thinking rationally instead of with your bias, genuine couples cherish each other or are you in a miserable relationship and need to lash out to convince yourself its good, try looking at yourself before criticizing others. Produce a decent argument instead of your sky fairy crap and I will listen to you, your answer is truly pathetric to say the least.

An appalling post that only takes an attempt at a rational discussion down to rock bottom. You've made no attempt to answer the points he made but just criticised the poster.

The 'conflict' was started by anti-homosexual posts, particularly the one that Ayg replied to. It was not hijacked by gays but by bigotry which you continue to spout here.

I am not gay but I can't stand those who think that gays are some sort of deviants that can change sexual orientation at a whim. Far too often the bigotry comes from some sort of fundamentalist 'Christian' right-wing upbringing that narrow-minded people have failed to discard even when the opportunity to open their mind is widely available.

Is live and let live too much to ask for?

[Basil B]

This is all about producing "babies to order" for a un-natural couple.

The question is should the child have been created in the first place?

this is more about providing children for couple who can not conceive naturally and some of whom would be considered unfit to adopt in many countries.

I for one consider the child's welfare and best interests come first, and do not think it is right to create them to them in an un-natural environment.

We accept gay couples but hell we should not have to bend over backwards to please them. (pun intended).

Edited August 15, 2014 by Basil B

[MK1]

Had the Australian couples checked the law independently for themselves in both countries before committing to a surrogacy arrangement then they would have realized what they were getting into from the start. Now more than likely, they will play the ignorance to the law game such as claiming to be held to ransom by the complex legal systems of two countries, through the media, as it appears to be brewing at the moment.

For your information, according to Australian Immigration department; The following Australian states and territories have legislation making it an offence for their residents to enter into overseas commercial surrogacy arrangements.

NSW

Surrogacy Act 2010

Maximum penalty: 2500 penalty units, in the case of a corporation, or 1000 penalty units or imprisonment for two years (or both) in any other case.

ACT

Parentage Act 2004

Maximum penalty: 100 penalty units, imprisonment for one year or both.

Qld

Surrogacy Act 2010

Maximum penalty: 100 penalty units or three years imprisonment.

Also, “To bring a child to Australia to live, the intended parents of the child will need to apply for either Australian citizenship by descent or a permanent visa for the child. Where a child becomes an Australian citizen by descent, the intended parents will also need to apply for an Australian passport for the child”.

Furthermore; “in international surrogacy cases where the intended parent is not a biological parent, an Adoption (subclass 102) visa is the relevant visa for the child. The intended parent would need to formally adopt the child in accordance with the law of the child's country of usual residence and must meet additional residency requirements outside Australia before applying for the visa”.

Source: http://www.immi.gov.au/media/fact-sheets/36a_surrogacy.htm#limitation

Edited August 15, 2014 by MK1

[khunken]

This is all about producing "babies to order" for a un-natural couple.

The question is should the child have been created in the first place?

this is more about providing children for couple who can not conceive naturally and some of whom would be considered unfit to adopt in many countries.

I for one consider the child's welfare and best interests come first, and do not think it is right to create them to them in an un-natural environment.

We accept gay couples but hell we should not have to bend over backwards to please them. (pun intended).

To answer your first sentence - no it's not. It's about foreigners (both gay and heterosexual) illegally using Thailand to obtain babies in a way that they can't do at home.

Yes IVF is not a natural treatment - it's a man-made enhancement for those unable to produce their own offspring. But it's no more 'unnatural' than those who prefer their own sex to the opposite.

I too consider the child's environment and upbringing as paramount with a preference for a mother & father as the carers and all those one-parent families (millions of them) are no more 'un-natural' than two-parent families of the same sex.

Your last line with it's nasty innuendo is just sticking your nose into someone else's business.

[Dogmatix]

The Thais are rushing to coverup issues in this Thai surrogacy trade. the Thais need international supervision and outrage in order to bring any attention to it. It's a good Thai business, and Thais don't care too much about any standards, morals, rules, or regulations.

I think that's about right. Surrogacy bills have been proposed to several governments but none of them had any interest. Now everyone is running out making out like they had no idea that this lucrative business was going on under their noses.

A side effect of this is likely to be that fathers taking their half Thai children out of the country are going to be stopped and asked for evidenced that the mother has given her permission.

Edited August 15, 2014 by Dogmatix

[Kooweerup]

I did see news report that this manufacturing of babies was prodemently a gay enterprise. Gay couples are heavily into this form of human trafficking. Something like 70 to 80% of baby manufacturing is run by the gay Community of the world.

[seajae]

Bigotry is the state of mind of someone who, as a result of their prejudices, treats or views other people with fear, distrust or hatred on the basis

of a person's ethnicity, race, religion, national origin, gender, disability, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, or other characteristics.

This is the meaning of bigotry, where does it say that people are not allowed to disagree, those in here calling people bigots/homophobes because their opinion differs to yours are simply stirring the pot. There are homophobes unfortunately and they can also stir the pot too but the majority of us have no problems with the gay community as such, doesnt mean we are not allowed to disgree with them though and certainly doesnt mean we are bigots.

[arjunadawn]

stopping same sex couples from taking babies out of the country is good.i have no problem with people having a same sex partner but do not believe they should come here looking to get children they cannot have naturally.basicly same sex partners cannot have babies with each other and therefore cannot have children.i am not religious at all but do believe in the natural order of life.

Do you also have a problem with infertile heterosexual couples having children? Or are you just a homophobic bigot?

You degrade yourself and those you presume to represent. Why can't this man simply have a different point of view without receiving pejoratives cloaked as reason? Why couldn't you simply offer your point of view and perhaps make an observation that strengthens your conviction and serves to inform those undecided? Instead you demonstrate the uneasy sense that there is a militant homosexual agenda that seeks to silence those with traditional or alternate views. When a counter point is made, predicated significantly on ad hominen attacks, you reveal the bankruptcy of your position. Let people share without being ugly; he was not. His point was a valid perspective.

[thaibeachlovers]

Excellent. Sounds like they are going to effectively ban foreign surrogacy. If people want a child there are lots of orphans to adopt. Enough people in the world already- more not needed.

[arjunadawn]

stopping same sex couples from taking babies out of the country is good.i have no problem with people having a same sex partner but do not believe they should come here looking to get children they cannot have naturally.basicly same sex partners cannot have babies with each other and therefore cannot have children.i am not religious at all but do believe in the natural order of life.

So Keith, let me get this right. Same sex partners cannot have babies naturally, so they should not reproduce.

I am infertile, and therefore unable to reproduce....so since I cannot have a baby myself I should not have a surrogate?

Incidentally, I am a lesbian too, so I guess that is a double whammy in your book??

It's pretty clear your analogies are pointless. Your correct, I agree,but pointless. This man reveals that while not religious he simply otherwise opposes homosexual child rearing/adoption. I suggest he feels society's approving this condones a life style that is anathema to life, therefore raising children is incomprehensible. The problem with his position is... nothing! It's just his position. It's just a different point of view.

One can bring up examples of two women, a heterosexual woman can't conceive, etc., as examples of others who /should have children- and your correct, perhaps, why not? Generally,society approves. Let them have children. He feels it's just wrong. It's probably his gut reaction. At least he's honest enough and upright enough to state it's not religious. Therefore, it's truly his own position. Folks should give to those who aren't convinced the respect of their position. You would not like the world any better if all agreed with you. I hope your "book" allows for Keith to disagree.

Edited August 15, 2014 by arjunadawn

[Thai at Heart]

I keep reading from people opposed to surrogacy that people should adopt instead.

They seem to be unaware of the fact that there are just not enough unwanted babies in Western countries available to adopt.

A huge social change occurred in the 1960's with the advent of the contraceptive pill, access to safe abortion and social welfare for single mothers. There was no longer the social stigma against unmarried mothers. Women started to keep their babies instead of giving them up to orphanages.

This was a good thing given the terrible abuses we now know about that happened to these children in those institutions.

Well managed and ethical surrogacy is a much more desirable way for childless couples to have a family.

There are lots of in families children just not many baby's.

I do really think that with the amount of kids in care in the west, we should be looking to encourage adoption before this type of surrogacy being apparently so easy.

We are considering fostering alongside our own kids. Why not. Its a good thing to do. But of course everyone wants a baby not a partially grown child. What a world.

Edited August 15, 2014 by Thai at Heart

[GAZZPA]

stopping same sex couples from taking babies out of the country is good.i have no problem with people having a same sex partner but do not believe they should come here looking to get children they cannot have naturally.basicly same sex partners cannot have babies with each other and therefore cannot have children.i am not religious at all but do believe in the natural order of life.

Do you also have a problem with infertile heterosexual couples having children? Or are you just a homophobic bigot?

Homophobic is a term introduced by gays in an attempt to belittle or pressure anyone that has a different opinion to theirs be it about children or marriage. Everyone is entitled to live their own lives as they see fit, if they prefer their own sex then that is their choice and no-one can take that away from them. One thing they must also accept is that it is physically impossible for them to have their own children by each other, by going into their relationship this needs to be a part of what they want. If they have children through previous hetero relationships then they are able to fulfill their child raising problems but to claim they are entitled to invitro fertilization is a fallacy. This is not the same as hetero couples as they do have the required body parts to have children and are stopped only to a technicality that can be overcome by science, being either both women or both men gay couples were never meant to be able to reproduce. My eldest daughter is gay and I have had many gay friends over the years but I do not believe they have a right to this type of endeavour, it does not make me a "homophobe", just someone with an opinion . Trying to make people out to be something they are not to push your own bias is the problem, if you honestly believe you are entitled then try giving sound reasons that 2 same sex people should be able to reproduce even though it is physically impossible due to not have the correct reproductive organs between them and stop belittling anyone with a different opinion. It does a great dis-service to those gay couples that accept that they are not able to reproduce due to their partner choice and have chosen their partners due entirely to the love of each other.

First try to get your facts straight. The term "homophobic" was created by George Weinberg, a straight psychotherapist.

And for people who "prefer their own sex" is not "their choice"; it's not a choice at all. It's an intrinsic characteristic.

As for "both women or both men gay couples were never meant to be able to reproduce", what do you mean by "meant"? Do you believe in some invisible sky fairy who decides what is "meant" and what isn't "meant"?

You write "try giving sound reasons that 2 same sex people should be able to reproduce even though it is physically impossible". How about changing that to "try giving sound reasons that 2 different sex people should be able to reproduce even though the invisible sky fairy has resolved that for them it is to be physically impossible".

However, thank you for patronising me by writing "It does a great dis-service to those gay couples that accept that they are not able to reproduce due to their partner choice and have chosen their partners due entirely to the love of each other." I happen to be half of one of those "gay couples that accept that they are not able to reproduce". Personally, I am happy not to have children. However, if others feel that their lives would be enriched by raising and nurturing a child or children, who am I (or anybody else) to say no? Given the sh*tty ways that many children of straight couples and single parents are brought up, I would posit it's far better for children to be brought up by a couple who love, care for, and nurture the child irrespective of their sexuality and gender than to be brought up by uncaring individuals or couples of any sexual orientation.

What a load of nonsense, and whats this about sky fairies?

The simple fact is that nature, god, aliens, sky fairies (take your pick) have created a human reproductive system where you need 2 people of the opposite gender to have sex in order to reproduce and have babies. This is not a gay rights issue, it never has been and never will be because 2 people of the same sex cannot make babies!

Your example that 2 loving parents of the same sex is better then an abused child from a family comprising of mother and father is a childish comparison at best.

I would argue that a child brought up by 2 loving parents (mother and father) is better for the child then being raised by 2 loving parents of the same sex,, so if you are going to make comparisons make them real.

This is not homophobic, it is my opinion and I have no issues with people being gay at all. The only point I agree with you on is that people do not chose to be gay, you are either gay or you're not,, i don't think anyone wakes up one morning and choses their sexual preference.

I posted earlier that I am sure there are many gay couples who could create a really good argument as to why they should be able to raise a child with same sex parents. But, for some reason my heart tells me this isn't right,, I know people will shoot me for this (not literally) and i am generally pretty liberal about these kind of things but its the way I feel about it.. I cannot see how the child will not have a difficult time with it at some point in their life and also what effect it might have on their upbringing overall. Maybe at some point someone will convince me otherwise and I will change my view, sadly your post is not it.

Anyway the surrogacy point just seems very wrong to me.

[Bluespunk]

I did see news report that this manufacturing of babies was prodemently a gay enterprise. Gay couples are heavily into this form of human trafficking. Something like 70 to 80% of baby manufacturing is run by the gay Community of the world.

Surrogacy isn't human trafficking.

Where did you get your stats from? A Christmas cracker?

[JSPS]

Doesn't Thailand realize that same sex couples are untouchable. They are considered holy in Progressive circles and cannot be held to the same rules and regulations as others.

[OZEMADE]

^{Same sex couples allowed to leave Thailand with new born twins.}

^{https://au.news.yahoo.com/nsw/a/24731861/australian-same-sex-couple-allowed-to-leave-thailand-with-newborn-twins/}

[Kooweerup]

^{Same sex couples allowed to leave Thailand with new born twins.}

^{https://au.news.yahoo.com/nsw/a/24731861/australian-same-sex-couple-allowed-to-leave-thailand-with-newborn-twins/}

Didn't they have to apply to the? Was done quickly if they did, thought it took months for a foreigner to be recognised as a parent.

[thaibeachlovers]

Do you also have a problem with infertile heterosexual couples having children? Or are you just a homophobic bigot?

Homophobic is a term introduced by gays in an attempt to belittle or pressure anyone that has a different opinion to theirs be it about children or marriage. Everyone is entitled to live their own lives as they see fit, if they prefer their own sex then that is their choice and no-one can take that away from them. One thing they must also accept is that it is physically impossible for them to have their own children by each other, by going into their relationship this needs to be a part of what they want. If they have children through previous hetero relationships then they are able to fulfill their child raising problems but to claim they are entitled to invitro fertilization is a fallacy. This is not the same as hetero couples as they do have the required body parts to have children and are stopped only to a technicality that can be overcome by science, being either both women or both men gay couples were never meant to be able to reproduce. My eldest daughter is gay and I have had many gay friends over the years but I do not believe they have a right to this type of endeavour, it does not make me a "homophobe", just someone with an opinion . Trying to make people out to be something they are not to push your own bias is the problem, if you honestly believe you are entitled then try giving sound reasons that 2 same sex people should be able to reproduce even though it is physically impossible due to not have the correct reproductive organs between them and stop belittling anyone with a different opinion. It does a great dis-service to those gay couples that accept that they are not able to reproduce due to their partner choice and have chosen their partners due entirely to the love of each other.

First try to get your facts straight. The term "homophobic" was created by George Weinberg, a straight psychotherapist.

And for people who "prefer their own sex" is not "their choice"; it's not a choice at all. It's an intrinsic characteristic.

As for "both women or both men gay couples were never meant to be able to reproduce", what do you mean by "meant"? Do you believe in some invisible sky fairy who decides what is "meant" and what isn't "meant"?

You write "try giving sound reasons that 2 same sex people should be able to reproduce even though it is physically impossible". How about changing that to "try giving sound reasons that 2 different sex people should be able to reproduce even though the invisible sky fairy has resolved that for them it is to be physically impossible".

However, thank you for patronising me by writing "It does a great dis-service to those gay couples that accept that they are not able to reproduce due to their partner choice and have chosen their partners due entirely to the love of each other." I happen to be half of one of those "gay couples that accept that they are not able to reproduce". Personally, I am happy not to have children. However, if others feel that their lives would be enriched by raising and nurturing a child or children, who am I (or anybody else) to say no? Given the sh*tty ways that many children of straight couples and single parents are brought up, I would posit it's far better for children to be brought up by a couple who love, care for, and nurture the child irrespective of their sexuality and gender than to be brought up by uncaring individuals or couples of any sexual orientation.

What a load of nonsense, and whats this about sky fairies?

The simple fact is that nature, god, aliens, sky fairies (take your pick) have created a human reproductive system where you need 2 people of the opposite gender to have sex in order to reproduce and have babies. This is not a gay rights issue, it never has been and never will be because 2 people of the same sex cannot make babies!

Your example that 2 loving parents of the same sex is better then an abused child from a family comprising of mother and father is a childish comparison at best.

I would argue that a child brought up by 2 loving parents (mother and father) is better for the child then being raised by 2 loving parents of the same sex,, so if you are going to make comparisons make them real.

This is not homophobic, it is my opinion and I have no issues with people being gay at all. The only point I agree with you on is that people do not chose to be gay, you are either gay or you're not,, i don't think anyone wakes up one morning and choses their sexual preference.

I posted earlier that I am sure there are many gay couples who could create a really good argument as to why they should be able to raise a child with same sex parents. But, for some reason my heart tells me this isn't right,, I know people will shoot me for this (not literally) and i am generally pretty liberal about these kind of things but its the way I feel about it.. I cannot see how the child will not have a difficult time with it at some point in their life and also what effect it might have on their upbringing overall. Maybe at some point someone will convince me otherwise and I will change my view, sadly your post is not it.

Anyway the surrogacy point just seems very wrong to me.

It offends me that if it is OK for a female to be able to raise a child alone, and same sex couples can adopt or have by surrogacy a child, I am not allowed to adopt a child if I am a single male.

Post deleted to allow posting.

[Scott]

Posts using offensive and inflammatory language have been removed.

[Bluespunk]

@thaibeachlovers

You said:

It offends me that if it is OK for a female to be able to raise a child alone, and same sex couples can adopt or have by surrogacy a child, I am not allowed to adopt a child if I am a single male.

Post deleted to allow posting.

Me:

Are you saying single females are allowed to adopt but single males are not? Is that true?

Raising your own child as a single parent has nothing to do with adoption and men do it as well.

Not often or common place but it can happen that the father of a child will raise that child.

Edited August 17, 2014 by Bluespunk

[Lite Beer]

Australian couple allowed to leave Thailand with surrogate baby

BANGKOK: -- An Australian same-sex couple has been permitted to leave Thailand with a surrogate baby after background checks by Thai immigration authorities, reports said Sunday.

The couple sought assistance from the Australian embassy in Bangkok on Friday after they had been denied the departure.

Four Australian and American couples were prevented from leaving the kingdom with children born from Thai surrogate mothers on Thursday.

The scrutiny follows a surrogacy controversy in Thailand brought to attention by an Australian couple that allegedly abandoned a Down syndrome surrogate baby.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/national/Australian-couple-allowed-to-leave-Thailand-with-s-30241106.html

-- The Nation 2014-08-17

[Thai at Heart]

Do you also have a problem with infertile heterosexual couples having children? Or are you just a homophobic bigot?

Homophobic is a term introduced by gays in an attempt to belittle or pressure anyone that has a different opinion to theirs be it about children or marriage. Everyone is entitled to live their own lives as they see fit, if they prefer their own sex then that is their choice and no-one can take that away from them. One thing they must also accept is that it is physically impossible for them to have their own children by each other, by going into their relationship this needs to be a part of what they want. If they have children through previous hetero relationships then they are able to fulfill their child raising problems but to claim they are entitled to invitro fertilization is a fallacy. This is not the same as hetero couples as they do have the required body parts to have children and are stopped only to a technicality that can be overcome by science, being either both women or both men gay couples were never meant to be able to reproduce. My eldest daughter is gay and I have had many gay friends over the years but I do not believe they have a right to this type of endeavour, it does not make me a "homophobe", just someone with an opinion . Trying to make people out to be something they are not to push your own bias is the problem, if you honestly believe you are entitled then try giving sound reasons that 2 same sex people should be able to reproduce even though it is physically impossible due to not have the correct reproductive organs between them and stop belittling anyone with a different opinion. It does a great dis-service to those gay couples that accept that they are not able to reproduce due to their partner choice and have chosen their partners due entirely to the love of each other.

First try to get your facts straight. The term "homophobic" was created by George Weinberg, a straight psychotherapist.

And for people who "prefer their own sex" is not "their choice"; it's not a choice at all. It's an intrinsic characteristic.

As for "both women or both men gay couples were never meant to be able to reproduce", what do you mean by "meant"? Do you believe in some invisible sky fairy who decides what is "meant" and what isn't "meant"?

You write "try giving sound reasons that 2 same sex people should be able to reproduce even though it is physically impossible". How about changing that to "try giving sound reasons that 2 different sex people should be able to reproduce even though the invisible sky fairy has resolved that for them it is to be physically impossible".

However, thank you for patronising me by writing "It does a great dis-service to those gay couples that accept that they are not able to reproduce due to their partner choice and have chosen their partners due entirely to the love of each other." I happen to be half of one of those "gay couples that accept that they are not able to reproduce". Personally, I am happy not to have children. However, if others feel that their lives would be enriched by raising and nurturing a child or children, who am I (or anybody else) to say no? Given the sh*tty ways that many children of straight couples and single parents are brought up, I would posit it's far better for children to be brought up by a couple who love, care for, and nurture the child irrespective of their sexuality and gender than to be brought up by uncaring individuals or couples of any sexual orientation.

What a load of nonsense, and whats this about sky fairies?

The simple fact is that nature, god, aliens, sky fairies (take your pick) have created a human reproductive system where you need 2 people of the opposite gender to have sex in order to reproduce and have babies. This is not a gay rights issue, it never has been and never will be because 2 people of the same sex cannot make babies!

Your example that 2 loving parents of the same sex is better then an abused child from a family comprising of mother and father is a childish comparison at best.

I would argue that a child brought up by 2 loving parents (mother and father) is better for the child then being raised by 2 loving parents of the same sex,, so if you are going to make comparisons make them real.

This is not homophobic, it is my opinion and I have no issues with people being gay at all. The only point I agree with you on is that people do not chose to be gay, you are either gay or you're not,, i don't think anyone wakes up one morning and choses their sexual preference.

I posted earlier that I am sure there are many gay couples who could create a really good argument as to why they should be able to raise a child with same sex parents. But, for some reason my heart tells me this isn't right,, I know people will shoot me for this (not literally) and i am generally pretty liberal about these kind of things but its the way I feel about it.. I cannot see how the child will not have a difficult time with it at some point in their life and also what effect it might have on their upbringing overall. Maybe at some point someone will convince me otherwise and I will change my view, sadly your post is not it.

Anyway the surrogacy point just seems very wrong to me.

It offends me that if it is OK for a female to be able to raise a child alone, and same sex couples can adopt or have by surrogacy a child, I am not allowed to adopt a child if I am a single male.

Post deleted to allow posting.

What a world.

[thaibeachlovers]

@thaibeachlovers

You said:

It offends me that if it is OK for a female to be able to raise a child alone, and same sex couples can adopt or have by surrogacy a child, I am not allowed to adopt a child if I am a single male.

Post deleted to allow posting.

Me:

Are you saying single females are allowed to adopt but single males are not? Is that true?

Raising your own child as a single parent has nothing to do with adoption and men do it as well.

Not often or common place but it can happen that the father of a child will raise that child.

To expand a bit. A single woman in my home country can get pregnant and the state ( ie mug taxpayers ) will pay her to keep the child regardless of not being in a relationship. What is my chance of getting a female ( not in a relationship with me ) to produce a baby and let me keep it- ZERO. So, short of getting into a relationship soley for the purpose of obtaining a child, I have NO options for being able to have a child as a single man.

[KamalaRider]

First try to get your facts straight. The term "homophobic" was created by George Weinberg, a straight psychotherapist.

And for people who "prefer their own sex" is not "their choice"; it's not a choice at all. It's an intrinsic characteristic.

As for "both women or both men gay couples were never meant to be able to reproduce", what do you mean by "meant"? Do you believe in some invisible sky fairy who decides what is "meant" and what isn't "meant"?

You write "try giving sound reasons that 2 same sex people should be able to reproduce even though it is physically impossible". How about changing that to "try giving sound reasons that 2 different sex people should be able to reproduce even though the invisible sky fairy has resolved that for them it is to be physically impossible".

However, thank you for patronising me by writing "It does a great dis-service to those gay couples that accept that they are not able to reproduce due to their partner choice and have chosen their partners due entirely to the love of each other." I happen to be half of one of those "gay couples that accept that they are not able to reproduce". Personally, I am happy not to have children. However, if others feel that their lives would be enriched by raising and nurturing a child or children, who am I (or anybody else) to say no? Given the sh*tty ways that many children of straight couples and single parents are brought up, I would posit it's far better for children to be brought up by a couple who love, care for, and nurture the child irrespective of their sexuality and gender than to be brought up by uncaring individuals or couples of any sexual orientation.

Interesting response. You are happy to belittle anyone who believes in any form of religion, fate, or whatever whilst not allowing them a view about homsexual couples having the right to purchase children.

"The invisible sky fairy" - you might be atheist but why belittle those that aren't? This is about the natural biological functions of the male and females of the species to reproduce. Homosexuals can't do that and baby buying and trafficking is, as we can see here, not the answer.

Your suggestion that all homosexuals are loving, caring and would make perfect parents compared to hetrosexual couples is based on what? Surely not a bias to those with your own sexual preference. Next, you'll be claiming homosexuals are all model citizens in every country in the world.

How come most religious people always believe they have the devine right to tell others how to live and push their morals and beliefs down anyone elses throat who doesn't agree with them?

Personally, I beileve in anyones right to choose religion or not.

Your rights as obviously a religious person, extends only to your personal choice and that's it.

Do you really think your faith superseeds anyone elses faith or non faith?

Personally, I can't even tell what's right or wrong when it comes to surrogacy, because I believe in individuals rights to choose for themselves, unless it's against the law, which I hope isn't affected by an old book written by mortals some couple of thousand years ago.

[AloisAmrein]

Stop the colonialism with surrogate babies and child trafiking.

[balo]

They should be ashamed of themselves. There are many homeless kids in this world that needs a good home. No need to produce more babies just because of their own selfishness,

Edited August 17, 2014 by balo

[AyG]

First try to get your facts straight. The term "homophobic" was created by George Weinberg, a straight psychotherapist.

And for people who "prefer their own sex" is not "their choice"; it's not a choice at all. It's an intrinsic characteristic.

As for "both women or both men gay couples were never meant to be able to reproduce", what do you mean by "meant"? Do you believe in some invisible sky fairy who decides what is "meant" and what isn't "meant"?

You write "try giving sound reasons that 2 same sex people should be able to reproduce even though it is physically impossible". How about changing that to "try giving sound reasons that 2 different sex people should be able to reproduce even though the invisible sky fairy has resolved that for them it is to be physically impossible".

However, thank you for patronising me by writing "It does a great dis-service to those gay couples that accept that they are not able to reproduce due to their partner choice and have chosen their partners due entirely to the love of each other." I happen to be half of one of those "gay couples that accept that they are not able to reproduce". Personally, I am happy not to have children. However, if others feel that their lives would be enriched by raising and nurturing a child or children, who am I (or anybody else) to say no? Given the sh*tty ways that many children of straight couples and single parents are brought up, I would posit it's far better for children to be brought up by a couple who love, care for, and nurture the child irrespective of their sexuality and gender than to be brought up by uncaring individuals or couples of any sexual orientation.

Interesting response. You are happy to belittle anyone who believes in any form of religion, fate, or whatever whilst not allowing them a view about homsexual couples having the right to purchase children.

"The invisible sky fairy" - you might be atheist but why belittle those that aren't? This is about the natural biological functions of the male and females of the species to reproduce. Homosexuals can't do that and baby buying and trafficking is, as we can see here, not the answer.

Your suggestion that all homosexuals are loving, caring and would make perfect parents compared to hetrosexual couples is based on what? Surely not a bias to those with your own sexual preference. Next, you'll be claiming homosexuals are all model citizens in every country in the world.

How come most religious people always believe they have the devine right to tell others how to live and push their morals and beliefs down anyone elses throat who doesn't agree with them?

Personally, I beileve in anyones right to choose religion or not.

Your rights as obviously a religious person, extends only to your personal choice and that's it.

Do you really think your faith superseeds anyone elses faith or non faith?

Personally, I can't even tell what's right or wrong when it comes to surrogacy, because I believe in individuals rights to choose for themselves, unless it's against the law, which I hope isn't affected by an old book written by mortals some couple of thousand years ago.

Sadly it's not only people whose Weltanschauung is based upon the beliefs of primitive people living in the Middle East two thousands years ago or so (or a bit more recently for Mohammedans). There are also people who use a rather less specific argument based upon the concept that "homosexuality is icky". This probably comes from some spurious internal logic along the lines of "I'm heterosexual", "my parents are heterosexual", "my grandparents were heterosexual" so everybody should be heterosexual. I guess these people aren't familiar with the philosophy of Karl Popper and the concept of the Black Swan Fallacy.

Unfortunately, some of those afflicted by this erroneous thinking are amongst the world's law makers.

[Thai at Heart]

First try to get your facts straight. The term "homophobic" was created by George Weinberg, a straight psychotherapist.

And for people who "prefer their own sex" is not "their choice"; it's not a choice at all. It's an intrinsic characteristic.

As for "both women or both men gay couples were never meant to be able to reproduce", what do you mean by "meant"? Do you believe in some invisible sky fairy who decides what is "meant" and what isn't "meant"?

You write "try giving sound reasons that 2 same sex people should be able to reproduce even though it is physically impossible". How about changing that to "try giving sound reasons that 2 different sex people should be able to reproduce even though the invisible sky fairy has resolved that for them it is to be physically impossible".

However, thank you for patronising me by writing "It does a great dis-service to those gay couples that accept that they are not able to reproduce due to their partner choice and have chosen their partners due entirely to the love of each other." I happen to be half of one of those "gay couples that accept that they are not able to reproduce". Personally, I am happy not to have children. However, if others feel that their lives would be enriched by raising and nurturing a child or children, who am I (or anybody else) to say no? Given the sh*tty ways that many children of straight couples and single parents are brought up, I would posit it's far better for children to be brought up by a couple who love, care for, and nurture the child irrespective of their sexuality and gender than to be brought up by uncaring individuals or couples of any sexual orientation.

Interesting response. You are happy to belittle anyone who believes in any form of religion, fate, or whatever whilst not allowing them a view about homsexual couples having the right to purchase children.

"The invisible sky fairy" - you might be atheist but why belittle those that aren't? This is about the natural biological functions of the male and females of the species to reproduce. Homosexuals can't do that and baby buying and trafficking is, as we can see here, not the answer.

Your suggestion that all homosexuals are loving, caring and would make perfect parents compared to hetrosexual couples is based on what? Surely not a bias to those with your own sexual preference. Next, you'll be claiming homosexuals are all model citizens in every country in the world.

How come most religious people always believe they have the devine right to tell others how to live and push their morals and beliefs down anyone elses throat who doesn't agree with them?

Personally, I beileve in anyones right to choose religion or not.

Your rights as obviously a religious person, extends only to your personal choice and that's it.

Do you really think your faith superseeds anyone elses faith or non faith?

Personally, I can't even tell what's right or wrong when it comes to surrogacy, because I believe in individuals rights to choose for themselves, unless it's against the law, which I hope isn't affected by an old book written by mortals some couple of thousand years ago.

Sadly it's not only people whose Weltanschauung is based upon the beliefs of primitive people living in the Middle East two thousands years ago or so (or a bit more recently for Mohammedans). There are also people who use a rather less specific argument based upon the concept that "homosexuality is icky". This probably comes from some spurious internal logic along the lines of "I'm heterosexual", "my parents are heterosexual", "my grandparents were heterosexual" so everybody should be heterosexual. I guess these people aren't familiar with the philosophy of Karl Popper and the concept of the Black Swan Fallacy.

Unfortunately, some of those afflicted by this erroneous thinking are amongst the world's law makers.

Well. The nature or nurture argument is still ongoing.