Two Australian couples stopped from leaving Thailand with surrogate babies

[Dogmatix]

It seems to me that both the Australian and Thai governments have behaved shamefully over this.

I don't understand why the Australian government should be involved in aiding and abetting this obviously shady commercial business which verges on human trafficking in a foreign country. If they feel its so important for Australians to have this facility why haven't they set it up in their own country with government subsidies, rather than setting out to deliberately exploit underprivileged people in poorer countries. Letting homosexual couples marry and rear children is a Western value which is not yet permitted in Thailand but they imposed Australian cultural values on developing countries. If Australia thinks that allowing convicted sex offenders to purchase surrogate children as playthings, that's all fine and liberal but they have no right to export this disgusting cultural value to other countries. It's like exporting toxic waste to third world countries. If you have to this sort of thing, please do it at home or why not search through the concentration camps set up for illegal immigrates for Afgan women etc who are willing to act as surrogates for Australians in exchange for residence.

The Thai government has known that this goes on for years but turned a blind eye because police, health authorities and other government officials have been enriching themselves from bribed. Successive governments have deliberately avoided passing meaningful legislation for surrogacy. Now that it has hit the news that a Japanese idiot has been found to producing babies for sale and an Australian pervert has been caught buying one and dumping another, not to mention the steady flow of homosexual couples coming as purchasers, they are reluctantly forced into a knee jerk reaction.

Shame on both your houses.

Edited August 17, 2014 by Dogmatix

[Dogmatix]

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.

It's not really case of whether the concept of homosexual "parents" is morally acceptable to us Westerners or not. The problem is that issues such as legal sex changes, homosexual marriage and homosexual parents are not yet generally accepted or legal in Buddhist Thailand but the Australian government has deliberately foisted these cultural values on Thailand, openly supporting the practice by issuing Australian visas or citizenship the surrogate babies who, under Thai law are Thai citizens. That is also interfering with the sovereignty of another country.

[Brigante7]

If 2 homosexuals (male or female) want to have a baby then let them have one the way it's meant to be done by having sexual intercourse with a member of the opposite sex. There's a reason that 2 men or 2 woman can't have a baby on their own. As a previous poster said, there are millions of abandoned babies in the world who would love a chance at a happy life, why don't they help them?

[Baerboxer]

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.

I haven't said I'm religious; and if I was, what my religion is. All imagined in your mind.

People can choose to be religious or not. Those who wish to force their atheist or agnostic views on others are equally objectionable as those who want to force their particular brand of religion are.

I couldn't care less what you believe in or what you believe my rights to be. Your view in that matter is of no consequence.

I'm not surprised you have difficulty understanding the rights or wrongs of surrogacy or anything else. You've constructed your own meaning to my post, which is way off beam in your anxiety to advance anti-religious views.

[inutil]

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.

Youre absolutely right! If only there was, i dunno, some kind of modern wizardry whereby we could fertilise an egg outside of the actual physical act of love making! I guess until such a magic exists, we'll just have to concede the point that it is physically impossible for two people of the same sex to, in any way, create a baby from their actual biological self! Just as its physically impossible for a human to take flight in some kind of gravity defying contraption and cross thousands of miles to do it! Are we now to believe ourselves birds? What utter nonsense! if we were intended to fly, then we would have been born with wings! If we were intended to breed outside of the confines of physical procreation we would have invented procedures and testable methods in order to do so! Absurd! I will send this message to you on the morrow by carrier pigeon!... Once of course i figure out what all these confounded symbols mean!

Edited August 17, 2014 by inutil

[smotherb]

Let me get this straight.

Given these two things hold true:

If a woman wants a child, but her partner is incapable of impregnating her, she can resort to medical science, through whatever means, to make her pregnant.

If a woman wants a baby, but she is incapable of becoming pregnant, she can resort to medical science, through whatever means, to make her pregnant.

Then these two things are true:

Neither gender nor sexual orientation of the partner matter and

Men, in this equation, bear less consequence than an insignificant digit.

[louse1953]

Ah! so now the crap has hit the fan they are stopping them at the Airport! I hope the initial breach and how it happened is being investigated otherwise it is just knee jerk reaction to a cover up!

It is also against Thai Human Trafficking laws and the country is under huge pressure internationally to stamp out human trafficking. Add this and the huge international attention Thailand is receiving in regards to baby Gammy and the Junta is going to act. I don't think this will just be a simple knew jerk reaction. I saw on Australian Television news this morning that all people with young children are being checked for proof of parentage.

How can you traffic your own baby.

[Varangkul]

Ah! so now the crap has hit the fan they are stopping them at the Airport! I hope the initial breach and how it happened is being investigated otherwise it is just knee jerk reaction to a cover up!

It is also against Thai Human Trafficking laws and the country is under huge pressure internationally to stamp out human trafficking. Add this and the huge international attention Thailand is receiving in regards to baby Gammy and the Junta is going to act. I don't think this will just be a simple knew jerk reaction. I saw on Australian Television news this morning that all people with young children are being checked for proof of parentage.

How can you traffic your own baby.

Do any of you know what this Japanese gentleman is doing - or going to do - with all of his babies?

[louse1953]

Ah! so now the crap has hit the fan they are stopping them at the Airport! I hope the initial breach and how it happened is being investigated otherwise it is just knee jerk reaction to a cover up!

It is also against Thai Human Trafficking laws and the country is under huge pressure internationally to stamp out human trafficking. Add this and the huge international attention Thailand is receiving in regards to baby Gammy and the Junta is going to act. I don't think this will just be a simple knew jerk reaction. I saw on Australian Television news this morning that all people with young children are being checked for proof of parentage.

about 1 month ago we flew out of Thailand for a quick holiday, wife and 4 year old son were channelled thru a separate gate to myself with son being quizzed as to who he was, who were his parents and where was he going etc. after mother was told to remain quiet.

How do they quiz a 8 month old child?

[louse1953]

Ah! so now the crap has hit the fan they are stopping them at the Airport! I hope the initial breach and how it happened is being investigated otherwise it is just knee jerk reaction to a cover up!

It is also against Thai Human Trafficking laws and the country is under huge pressure internationally to stamp out human trafficking. Add this and the huge international attention Thailand is receiving in regards to baby Gammy and the Junta is going to act. I don't think this will just be a simple knew jerk reaction. I saw on Australian Television news this morning that all people with young children are being checked for proof of parentage.

How can you traffic your own baby.

Do any of you know what this Japanese gentleman is doing - or going to do - with all of his babies?

He's very,very busy changing nappies and running to 7 to get milk.

[rohlm50212]

LMAO, CHANGE CHANNELS

Modern World....If a woman is Raped and bears a child, a wrong is done...

If you were the Intelegent Human living child, WOULD YOU CARE? Freedom....To the brainless drama seeking, probably parents,wake up this is the melenium...

Nobody cares what you think except the news....$$$$$$$$

[rohlm50212]

Some countries it is legal to have 10 wives as long as you take care of them

Some countries they terminate if female or if you have more than 1 child, IS THAT OK?

[rohlm50212]

Some species of animals, you are ostrsized if you can not reproduce, modern man cuts his genitals to ne sterile....LOL

I find it Amuzing

[GAZZPA]

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.

Oh dear, you don't really know what you are talking about here.

People of faith do not believe they have the right to tell you how to lead your life, they believe that God will judge how you live and only he has the right. Also, they do not believe they have any right to ram religion down your throat, they believe that God wants you to believe in him but he gives you free will and it's for you to choose whether you accept him or not.

They believe if you accept God and live your life the right way you live eternally in heaven. So, they do sometimes feel compelled to talk to you about it because they feel that they are doing you the biggest favour of your life, especially if they can educate you and bring you to God (this is what they mean by saving you). They have the right to do this the same as you have the right to talk about your opinions and beliefs, but if you don't want to listen you simply and politely tell them that you don't want to know.

Also, the bible is not just an "old book",this is flippant remark that many will find offensive. The bible is believed to be a collection of testimonies of the life of the son of God and a guide on how to live your life. You already live by many of the principles in it, you are probably just not aware but yes, many of today laws are based upon it.

Perhaps you should spend some time learning a little before you condemn,, if not because you want to explore your own spirituality then simply because it is really interesting and you will know what they are talking about next time you are approached.

[gbswales]

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.

Anyone who writes "I believe in xxx right.........but" is displaying a contradiction between what they say they believe and what they really feel. Being gay is not an acquired life choice but something that is part of the person, usually from long before they are at the point of understanding or forming relationships. It is not something about which there is a choice. It is therefore by definition natural. What we are discussing here is not unnatural birth - scientists are not creating wombs in men so that they can have children- it is the normal process of adoption. For any child the most important thing is that they are brought up and nurtured in a loving and caring envrionmnet which allows them to develop their real personality free from the prejudice and and the lifestyle chosen by their parents. It doesnt matter whether this is one father one mother, two mothers, two fathers, a single parent or even a commune of twenty people. Looking around I see children who are, for example, given little choice about what (if any) faith they follow and who have been taught that the only correct values are those their parents (whatever sex) subscribe to. I doubt you have ever encountered a teenager thrown out by their gay parents "for being straight" but there are far too many examples of the opposite.

I realise that you see some kind of militant gay agenda - and there may well be a few people with extreme views - but these are not the majority and the only reason a "gay agenda" exists at all is that for many the experience of acknowledging who they are has opened them to both abuse and physical attack. People generally do not get beaten up because they are straight - but if you are gay, even in a relatively civilised country like the UK, then it is something always in the back of your mind. Gay militancy came about as a result of decades of religion based oppression and a proud few stood up and faced the challenge to win freedom for all of us. That freedom is still highly fragile and constantly under attack (example recent events and laws in Russia and Uganda) therefore even quite subtle or veiled attacks still need to be challenged.

Who would believe that after the awful revelations of the holodcaust that anti-seminism could arise again in western europe and yet because of what the state of Israel (another country) is engaged in, this awful prejudice is returning. The same thing could (and is in some place happening) to the understanding built up around the issue of being gay. Saying "it is ok for adults to be gay - but dont educated children that being gay is ok (IF that is how they feel) is wrong and displays the underlying prejudice.

I know that i have strayed a little from the actual post but it is all part of the same issue. I was born in the 1950's where being openly gay was not an option and I admit (though not conciously) taking the cowards way of conforming to a straight lifestyle. Doing so eventually caused a great deal of pain to someone I loved but it did give me two wonderful children. The thought that I would have been denied those children if I had been honest fills me with pain - which is why I too get angry when the suggestion is made that gay couples should not have children "because it is not natural".

[Guest]

I cannot think of any argument that makes sense of two male homosexuals having a surrogate baby, governments of all or any country that is party to this should hang there heads in shame, and if you think I am homophobic then you are probably right although I have some homosexual friends and have no problem on a personal basis with gay people.

Try adoption as some of the OPs have suggested is a way of trying to have children if the agencies accept the applicants as beings acceptable parents and I don't mean because they are gay just acceptable parents, they have made a choice to have a partner that cannot conceive so live with it, the gay or not gay argument is not for this forum.

[chooka]

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.

Oh dear, you don't really know what you are talking about here.

People of faith do not believe they have the right to tell you how to lead your life, they believe that God will judge how you live and only he has the right. Also, they do not believe they have any right to ram religion down your throat, they believe that God wants you to believe in him but he gives you free will and it's for you to choose whether you accept him or not.

They believe if you accept God and live your life the right way you live eternally in heaven. So, they do sometimes feel compelled to talk to you about it because they feel that they are doing you the biggest favour of your life, especially if they can educate you and bring you to God (this is what they mean by saving you). They have the right to do this the same as you have the right to talk about your opinions and beliefs, but if you don't want to listen you simply and politely tell them that you don't want to know.

Also, the bible is not just an "old book",this is flippant remark that many will find offensive. The bible is believed to be a collection of testimonies of the life of the son of God and a guide on how to live your life. You already live by many of the principles in it, you are probably just not aware but yes, many of today laws are based upon it.

Perhaps you should spend some time learning a little before you condemn,, if not because you want to explore your own spirituality then simply because it is really interesting and you will know what they are talking about next time you are approached.

Guess you have never had the bloody Mormons at your front door and refuse to leave pushing their religion down your throat. It is extremely offensive and intrusive what these people of faith do. No matter how hard you tell them your not interested in their evil religion and to bugger off they keep going on and ramming it down your throat. The only way to stop them and get them off your property is to turn the dogs loose on them.

[kamahele]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

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.

When is discrimination based on sexual orientation considered a valid perspective? Why shouldn't a bigot be told they are a bigot? Would you be standing up for this person if he/she said that Jews shouldn't be allowed to reproduce or that black people or Christians shouldn't be able to reproduce? It isn't radical or a militant to stand up to those who are wrong and whose opinions are racist or homophobic

[kamahele]

Wow, a lot of ignorant homophobes on this site who think that stating "I have nothing against gays" before they make stupid remarks, makes those remarks acceptable. For example, there is a difference between gay people and pedophiles. Yes, it may be hard for some to believe but men who have sex with children are not actually gay. Men who are attracted to men are gay. There is a distinction. The vast majority of pedophiles would actually consider themselves straight or heterosexual. The scientific studies done concerning the effects of being raised by gay parents actually points out that the children do just as well and sometimes even better than when raised in a home with one male and one female parent. Remember, these children are really wanted. They are not a drunken mistake. These studies were performed by actual professionals and not old men who sleep with bar girls.

“Many studies have demonstrated that children’s well-being is affected much more by their relationships with their parents, their parents’ sense of competence and security, and the presence of social and economic support for the family than by the gender or the sexual orientation of their parents,” Siegel writes with coauthor Ellen Perrin, a Tufts University professor of pediatrics and director of developmental and behavioral pediatrics.

Edited August 18, 2014 by kamahele

[kamahele]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

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.

When is being homophobic a valid perspective? If he stated that Jews, or Blacks or Christians should not reproduce, would this also be a valid perspective? Pointing out racism, sexism, homophobia or other hate speech is not militant, it is the right thing for a human being to do.

[Bluespunk]

I cannot think of any argument that makes sense of two male homosexuals having a surrogate baby, governments of all or any country that is party to this should hang there heads in shame, and if you think I am homophobic then you are probably right although I have some homosexual friends and have no problem on a personal basis with gay people.

Try adoption as some of the OPs have suggested is a way of trying to have children if the agencies accept the applicants as beings acceptable parents and I don't mean because they are gay just acceptable parents, they have made a choice to have a partner that cannot conceive so live with it, the gay or not gay argument is not for this forum.

Why is it any less acceptable for two men to take the surrogacy route than any other type of couple?

[robmacc62]

What people fail to realise is that 90% of surrogacy companies in Thailand are foreign owned, and they will tell anybody that will listen it is all above board, ultimately it is up to the couples to find out the actual law to protect themselves

[Guest]

Wow, a lot of ignorant homophobes on this site who think that stating "I have nothing against gays" before they make stupid remarks, makes those remarks acceptable. For example, there is a difference between gay people and pedophiles. Yes, it may be hard for some to believe but men who have sex with children are not actually gay. Men who are attracted to men are gay. There is a distinction. The vast majority of pedophiles would actually consider themselves straight or heterosexual. The scientific studies done concerning the effects of being raised by gay parents actually points out that the children do just as well and sometimes even better than when raised in a home with one male and one female parent. Remember, these children are really wanted. They are not a drunken mistake. These studies were performed by actual professionals and not old men who sleep with bar girls.

“Many studies have demonstrated that children’s well-being is affected much more by their relationships with their parents, their parents’ sense of competence and security, and the presence of social and economic support for the family than by the gender or the sexual orientation of their parents,” Siegel writes with coauthor Ellen Perrin, a Tufts University professor of pediatrics and director of developmental and behavioral pediatrics.

Wow is correct, People like you really give me the shi-s, others are just stating their position is all, but you have to denigrate everything they say, why is it that you are the only one that has the correct opinion no one else is allowed to say anything that you don't believe, and then to call them stupid you moron

[Guest]

I cannot think of any argument that makes sense of two male homosexuals having a surrogate baby, governments of all or any country that is party to this should hang there heads in shame, and if you think I am homophobic then you are probably right although I have some homosexual friends and have no problem on a personal basis with gay people.

Try adoption as some of the OPs have suggested is a way of trying to have children if the agencies accept the applicants as beings acceptable parents and I don't mean because they are gay just acceptable parents, they have made a choice to have a partner that cannot conceive so live with it, the gay or not gay argument is not for this forum.

Why is it any less acceptable for two men to take the surrogacy route than any other type of couple?

I think Surrogacy is not acceptable at all and even less so for men, they have made a choice or had a choice forced on them but either way, I know it is not so fair but the world aint fair, two wemen can do better for obvious reasons so fair it isn't.

[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.

Oh dear, you don't really know what you are talking about here.

People of faith do not believe they have the right to tell you how to lead your life, they believe that God will judge how you live and only he has the right. Also, they do not believe they have any right to ram religion down your throat, they believe that God wants you to believe in him but he gives you free will and it's for you to choose whether you accept him or not.

They believe if you accept God and live your life the right way you live eternally in heaven. So, they do sometimes feel compelled to talk to you about it because they feel that they are doing you the biggest favour of your life, especially if they can educate you and bring you to God (this is what they mean by saving you). They have the right to do this the same as you have the right to talk about your opinions and beliefs, but if you don't want to listen you simply and politely tell them that you don't want to know.

Also, the bible is not just an "old book",this is flippant remark that many will find offensive. The bible is believed to be a collection of testimonies of the life of the son of God and a guide on how to live your life. You already live by many of the principles in it, you are probably just not aware but yes, many of today laws are based upon it.

Perhaps you should spend some time learning a little before you condemn,, if not because you want to explore your own spirituality then simply because it is really interesting and you will know what they are talking about next time you are approached.

In a perfect world with perfect people your argument might hold true, but as I chose not to believe in myths and "testimonies" and dear me, me and my pears are not a threat to anyone compared to christians, jews and muslims around the world today.

I'm an atheist and I choose to live the right way without any finger pointing and messed up morals. I'm 53 and I DON'T need to have someone trying to convince me to believe in some higher authority.

You started off quite examplary for a religious bully, which I believe most religious people are,

"Oh dear" is down putting and a way for you to feel supreme, above anyone else that don't agree with your beliefs.

Another thing you wrote, "if not because you want to explore your own spirituality then simply because", what do you know about me, absolutely nothing and then you spew out a line like that.

Because I don't believe in fiction doesn't mean I don't have a sprititual life and that I haven't explored it.

Again you make the assumption about me and all of it is untrue, I have read the bible, the koran and also parts of the tora and I simply can't find anything in them to make me believe in your god, believe it or not, you are worshipping the same god and still you fight each other.

How stupid isn't that, do you persive yourself as more enlightened and educated?

I am educated and I have also tried to understand why some people have the need for a religion, it's absolutely not my business to tell these people that it's just fiction, mainly because I believe in treating people with respect for whatever they believe in, neither can prove the other wrong and I truly believe in individual freedom to believe whatever you like, in politics or religion, at least plitics can be tested if it works, sorry, felt compelled to make that comment.

I'm VERY aware of most laws have roots in some religion and when it comes to that, I'm utterly disgusted how many those laws are used today in a society today, be it the US or Iran or any other country.

Any man or woman should have equal rights, especially the right to have children to care and enjoy what only children can bring, energy, laughter, sorrow and pain. You take the good as well as the bad, perfect life is just a notion.

So you and others don't "buy" organs when in need for it?

What educated knowledge do you have that exclude gays as pefect parents, I'm straight as can be and maybe because of that, I'm not threatend by different sexual orientation in other people.

I for one, know I wasn't a perfect parent to my kids when they grew up, but no one can take away my over flowing love for them from the day they were born.

I only wish everyone could feel or get the opportunity to feel what I felt and still feel, if only bigotts and people who only want to do good things would take a LONG step back with matters that IS NOT their business.

[KamalaRider]

I cannot think of any argument that makes sense of two male homosexuals having a surrogate baby, governments of all or any country that is party to this should hang there heads in shame, and if you think I am homophobic then you are probably right although I have some homosexual friends and have no problem on a personal basis with gay people.

Try adoption as some of the OPs have suggested is a way of trying to have children if the agencies accept the applicants as beings acceptable parents and I don't mean because they are gay just acceptable parents, they have made a choice to have a partner that cannot conceive so live with it, the gay or not gay argument is not for this forum.

Why is it any less acceptable for two men to take the surrogacy route than any other type of couple?

I think Surrogacy is not acceptable at all and even less so for men, they have made a choice or had a choice forced on them but either way, I know it is not so fair but the world aint fair, two wemen can do better for obvious reasons so fair it isn't.

So you mean I wasn't capable or fit to take care of my children when they grew up? I'm a man and I took care of my children half the time divided by me and my former wife.

[Loles]

I agree that adoption, when available, is a preferable option to surrogacy. However, it is the lack of clarity around the legality of these procedures that has led to this situation. There should be some leniency for those couples, heterosexual or same sex, who have entered into arrangements in good faith. Stopping people at the airport in this way is too cruel. By all means tighten the laws but don't criminalise those who have done nothing more than try to make a family. Yes, adoption is better.

The first normal opinion from over 140 posts.

Congratulation TV members.

Edited August 18, 2014 by Loles

[Guest]

I agree that adoption, when available, is a preferable option to surrogacy. However, it is the lack of clarity around the legality of these procedures that has led to this situation. There should be some leniency for those couples, heterosexual or same sex, who have entered into arrangements in good faith. Stopping people at the airport in this way is too cruel. By all means tighten the laws but don't criminalise those who have done nothing more than try to make a family. Yes, adoption is better.

The first normal opinion from over 140 posts.

Congratulation TV members.

in your opinion again we see people who have the only opinion no one else's is considered I do not post here very much for that reason, you are more likely than not to be condemned just for giving your own view than not.

stupid me I thought that this forum was to get different perspectives on a topic.

[Guest]

I agree that adoption, when available, is a preferable option to surrogacy. However, it is the lack of clarity around the legality of these procedures that has led to this situation. There should be some leniency for those couples, heterosexual or same sex, who have entered into arrangements in good faith. Stopping people at the airport in this way is too cruel. By all means tighten the laws but don't criminalise those who have done nothing more than try to make a family. Yes, adoption is better.

The first normal opinion from over 140 posts.

Congratulation TV members.

in your opinion again we see people who have the only opinion no one else's is considered I do not post here very much for that reason, you are more likely than not to be condemned just for giving your own view than not.

stupid me I thought that this forum was to get different perspectives on a topic.

[arjunadawn]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

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.

When is discrimination based on sexual orientation considered a valid perspective? Why shouldn't a bigot be told they are a bigot? Would you be standing up for this person if he/she said that Jews shouldn't be allowed to reproduce or that black people or Christians shouldn't be able to reproduce? It isn't radical or a militant to stand up to those who are wrong and whose opinions are racist or homophobic

I will answer your questions, though I see later your truer colors revealed in other post and you drivel. Discrimination is always wrong; society has collectively asserted it is never correct to apply or withhold the fruits and aids of government on the basis of sex orientation, gender, race, religion, etc. Regrettably, this collective effort to legislate appropriate behavior in the intercourse with others officially then extended into the freedom of association whereby people were told they must now associate with those they perhaps wish not to. You may find this abhorrent but it is fundamentally contrary to the natural rights of Man. This insidious progressiveness then extended into mindspace where people were then told how to think.

First this militant effort's stalking horse was race relations and the majority who were targeted, whites in the US, were a docile target because they had actually been wrong! Thus having the interior space of their thoughts and private associations now monitored in society, by government, etc., was not difficult. Besides, the purpose was so important- reverse the mindset that enabled the past injustices and create a society where all are created and equal before the law. Great. The problem is no one alive today owned slaves and affirmative action extended into the mindspace of private citizens went one step too far. Slowly, governments began to then legislate association and thought. Blacks joined clubs they previously could not. Entire perspectives were changes and increasingly the collective pressure to change mindspace perceptions had the weight of law behind it. Now, if one called another a racist the charge itself became the crime, irrespective of the facts. Regulations and law increasingly turned from affirmative action to enable access to equality to protected status, and the injustice extended beyond the law into free association and mind think.

Other groups noted the brilliant mechanics of the civil rights movement and adopted similar practices. Lets consider the homosexual agenda: it is a fact that homosexuality has been condemned and rebuked and persecuted in nearly all times and all places. The homosexual movement seeking equality has clearly exceeded its wildest dreams. Homosexual activism, widely embraced and sustained by the left, is accepted now in nearly all places except the one place the left supports most these days, the islamic world. Nevertheless, having attained their goals, relatively, this movement turned militant and now does seek special status in wide swaths of the American landscape. Indeed, even immigrants today, in the usa, that are nearing deportation, are claiming homosexuality, and being waivered. This militantism is a valid foci of disgust. This stalking horse- "I am gay" is frequently used to silence critics, suspend equal treatment before the law, silence neighbors, coerce co workers, gain preferential treatment in hiring, and silence the free associate minds and mouths in their own yards.

If a person wants to hate gay people, so what? If a person wants to hate white people, so what? If a person wants to hate Christians (well this is not a good example as this is faddish now)... Jews, so what? This is not discrimination and in any meaningful world this is where government stops- at our thoughts. Government begins at our actions. I have no problem you "stand up" as you see fit, but this does not make your point valid. In a natural and proper world, each man should be entitled to his thoughts, and militant pressure or other tools such as your pejoratives, should not cower others. Radical progressivism and militant-like (reformed smoker type behavior) always reveal their vacuous nature by the buzz words they employ- bigot, prejudice, protect others, "right action", islamophobic, homophobic, leftophobic (just made that one up but seems appropriate). People who attempt by leverage to influence private discourse or association are insidious and dangerous. My single position on this topic relates to the poster who suffered rebuke solely for expressing his opinion. I personally have mixed thoughts and am undecided about homosexual adoption. Unlike most of you, I was adopted repeatedly and lived in an orphanage. This does not make my observations more meaningful, though they are more immediate.