Bluespunk Posted June 29, 2015 Share Posted June 29, 2015 (edited) Deleted Edited June 29, 2015 by Bluespunk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted June 29, 2015 Share Posted June 29, 2015 I love how we get these juicy news stories and then no followup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boomerangutang Posted June 29, 2015 Share Posted June 29, 2015 So any news updates on progress with this case? Is it looking good for the gay couple to get their child out of Thailand, or not? I hope not. I say that not as anything to do with the sexual orientation of the wanabe parents, but because exploiting poor people in foreign countries to produce children that could be used for nefarious purposes is just plain WRONG. If one's motives are pure, do it the right way and do it in your own country where there are laws to prevent misuse of the child. If you can't afford that, either adopt, or accept that you weren't meant to procreate. Too many people in the world already anyway. Nefarious purposes? This couple? So you would make the same post if the couple was straight? I'm sure someone believes that. Are you blind? Did you not see I say that not as anything to do with the sexual orientation of the wanabe parents???????????? Of course I'd say the same thing if they were straight. Paying poor people in a foreign country to do what you can't do in your own is just WRONG, and buying a child like a puppy dog is an abomination. I don't think it's exploitation. Granted, none of know what will happen in 5 or 10 or 25 years for the girl. But being a student of human character, I'd say the child has a good chance of a healthy happy upbringing with two good men watching out for her. I just read a true story online about an American man who heard of a young African girl who was sold to a rich African big shot to be his slave. The American was so inspired, he went to Africa, found the black girl, arranged to take her back to the US. It was challenging, with red-tape and all. And the girl had some adjustment problems growing up with a single white father. However, she blossomed, and at the end of the article, there's a photo of her and her American dad, and they look as happy and wholesome as all get-out. The girl is now a woman, and she returns to Africa to do philanthropic work to raise awareness, self-esteem and standard-of-living for African kids - and she loves her American dad as much as any daughter could love a dad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yunla Posted June 29, 2015 Share Posted June 29, 2015 Seems to me many Homosexuals are not content to live quietly , they jump about the Streets acting like Pro Cycle Activists and Religious Nutters pissing Folks off the majority of quiet folk regardless of their cause. Dont they realize many of their persuasion dont like them ether. I never dissliked or noticed them till some Lefty Nurd told Me i Should. As I understand it, the reason they march in streets dressed as rainbows, waving placards and being very noticeable, is a response to centuries of homophobic violence and slayings, of being persecuted so much that they sometimes chose suicide to escape. Many of the rainbow crowd have themselves been physically harmed in homophobic attacks. The whole 'in your face' thing is a response to this long history of homophobic violence and murder, and being forced to hide in the shadows for safety. On one level the very public LGBT stuff is like saying "look, here I am, walking around in public in daylight and dressed in bright colours, surrounded by likeminded people, not ashamed and not afraid." I think it is outstanding, and inspirational. Similarly, the social media is full of messages of support for LGBT people, for the same reason, it is recognition that these people have endured violent persecution for a long time, and suffered so much just because they fall in love. But obviously, just being LGBT doesn't make you a good parent, everyone has to be screened and evaluated on their individual suitability. As I said in the start of this thread, I would have danced for joy if I'd been adopted by anyone nice who looked after me, regardless of LGBT etc. I don't really see how that would be different for surrogacy, but then you have all the potential problems relating to surrogacy, which I think a person should avoid and go straight for adoption. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cumgranosalum Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 Seems to me many Homosexuals are not content to live quietly , they jump about the Streets acting like Pro Cycle Activists and Religious Nutters pissing Folks off the majority of quiet folk regardless of their cause. Dont they realize many of their persuasion dont like them ether. I never dissliked or noticed them till some Lefty Nurd told Me i Should. "Seems to me many Homosexuals are not content to live quietly" Why not try putting the word "people" instead of "homosexuals" and see how silly that statement is. loasds of people with an axe to grind take to the streets - that's how societies progress and change - often for the better. Of course a lot of Gay pride is a rather well humoured attempt at getting a message across.....it also is not dependant on sexual orientation; it is for those who support equal rights for all people. you'll be trying to ban Glastonbury next - what's good enough for the Dalai Lama is good enough for me.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cumgranosalum Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 Here's a good one..... http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/police-in-turkey-blast-pride-parade-with-water-cannons-accidentally-create-rainbow-10353695.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ace of Pop Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 Just showing respect.Unlike those Gays with Were Queer Were Here T Shirts..does nothing to the cause.just inflame homophobic anti idiots Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cumgranosalum Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 Just showing respect.Unlike those Gays with Were Queer Were Here T Shirts..does nothing to the cause.just inflame homophobic anti idiots there are millions of t-shirts around with "inflammatory" slogans, so why are you obsessing with the "gay" ones? It seems to me that you "have nothing against THEM" so long as they keep quiet about it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ace of Pop Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 Yes they are more boring than my Golf Chums.[emoji466]️ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cumgranosalum Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 Yes they are more boring than my Golf Chums.[emoji466]️ "They" - ? Who are "they"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnybangkok Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 Seems to me many Homosexuals are not content to live quietly , they jump about the Streets acting like Pro Cycle Activists and Religious Nutters pissing Folks off the majority of quiet folk regardless of their cause. Dont they realize many of their persuasion dont like them ether. I never dissliked or noticed them till some Lefty Nurd told Me i Should. As I understand it, the reason they march in streets dressed as rainbows, waving placards and being very noticeable, is a response to centuries of homophobic violence and slayings, of being persecuted so much that they sometimes chose suicide to escape. Many of the rainbow crowd have themselves been physically harmed in homophobic attacks. The whole 'in your face' thing is a response to this long history of homophobic violence and murder, and being forced to hide in the shadows for safety. On one level the very public LGBT stuff is like saying "look, here I am, walking around in public in daylight and dressed in bright colours, surrounded by likeminded people, not ashamed and not afraid." I think it is outstanding, and inspirational. Similarly, the social media is full of messages of support for LGBT people, for the same reason, it is recognition that these people have endured violent persecution for a long time, and suffered so much just because they fall in love. But obviously, just being LGBT doesn't make you a good parent, everyone has to be screened and evaluated on their individual suitability. As I said in the start of this thread, I would have danced for joy if I'd been adopted by anyone nice who looked after me, regardless of LGBT etc. I don't really see how that would be different for surrogacy, but then you have all the potential problems relating to surrogacy, which I think a person should avoid and go straight for adoption. What a well thought out and well written summary of the key to this issue for many on this thread. I salute you sir. If you study the thread from the beginning you will see that although this article was primarily about surrogacy, the inevitable anti-gay bias came out, often from individuals who I guarantee never thought they were bigoted or meant to infer prejudice but through their statements clearly showed they were. I don't really blame them as it's just inherent in many (mostly of a certain age, upbringing or religion). The legitimacy of surrogacy was soon hijacked by the "it shouldn't be allowed for them" or 'as long as I don't see it' anti-gay brigade who although when hit time and time again with peer reviewed, scientific studies proving that the sexual orientation of the parents makes absolutely no impact on a child's well-being (it's all about the love, support and nurturing duh) still cling to their dinosaur belief that somehow LGBT people are not the same as you and me and therefore should be treated differently. This was the exact same sentiment and argument used against women when, heaven forbid, they wanted the vote and for blacks in the Civil Rights movement. As another thread so eloquently put it here, just substitute gay/homosexual with the word 'people' and just see how ridiculous your statements are and why you should rightly be branded bigot or downright homophobic. But confrontation rarely achieves change so hopefully these 16 pages or so of insight and thought have enlightened some of you to how science is continually proving your miss-informed and antiquated views wrong and how society is moving so quickly that it is no longer going to passively sit by whilst you spread your message of suspicion, hate and downright lies. Please also understand, no one is attacking your very real right to have an opinion, we would just prefer it to be slightly better informed and backed up by something more scientific than your 'feelings". For many, their self inflicted myopia will continue to dictate their views and nothing will change for them but for some perhaps the mountain of evidence provided by many on this thread will at least questions their (probably) long held views on the subject and hopefully start to open their mind a little bit. The world is quickly coming round to what many of us have known to be true for many years; and that is the LGBT community is actually people, who only want the same rights and even playing field that you and I have enjoyed for many, many years. I for one hope they get it across the world very soon and I'm also happy that they scream, shout and jump about the streets until they do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thaibeachlovers Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 Seems to me many Homosexuals are not content to live quietly , they jump about the Streets acting like Pro Cycle Activists and Religious Nutters pissing Folks off the majority of quiet folk regardless of their cause. Dont they realize many of their persuasion dont like them ether. I never dissliked or noticed them till some Lefty Nurd told Me i Should. "Seems to me many Homosexuals are not content to live quietly" Why not try putting the word "people" instead of "homosexuals" and see how silly that statement is. loasds of people with an axe to grind take to the streets - that's how societies progress and change - often for the better. Of course a lot of Gay pride is a rather well humoured attempt at getting a message across.....it also is not dependant on sexual orientation; it is for those who support equal rights for all people. you'll be trying to ban Glastonbury next - what's good enough for the Dalai Lama is good enough for me.... Far as I know Glastonbury is held well outside town in a field, not parading down High St. Not a good comparison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cumgranosalum Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 Seems to me many Homosexuals are not content to live quietly , they jump about the Streets acting like Pro Cycle Activists and Religious Nutters pissing Folks off the majority of quiet folk regardless of their cause. Dont they realize many of their persuasion dont like them ether. I never dissliked or noticed them till some Lefty Nurd told Me i Should. "Seems to me many Homosexuals are not content to live quietly" Why not try putting the word "people" instead of "homosexuals" and see how silly that statement is. loasds of people with an axe to grind take to the streets - that's how societies progress and change - often for the better. Of course a lot of Gay pride is a rather well humoured attempt at getting a message across.....it also is not dependant on sexual orientation; it is for those who support equal rights for all people. you'll be trying to ban Glastonbury next - what's good enough for the Dalai Lama is good enough for me.... Far as I know Glastonbury is held well outside town in a field, not parading down High St. Not a good comparison. So homosexuals should be quiet and stay out of the High St? What other "groups" do you think should keep out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cumgranosalum Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 (edited) Seems to me many Homosexuals are not content to live quietly , they jump about the Streets acting like Pro Cycle Activists and Religious Nutters pissing Folks off the majority of quiet folk regardless of their cause. Dont they realize many of their persuasion dont like them ether. I never dissliked or noticed them till some Lefty Nurd told Me i Should. "Seems to me many Homosexuals are not content to live quietly" Why not try putting the word "people" instead of "homosexuals" and see how silly that statement is. loasds of people with an axe to grind take to the streets - that's how societies progress and change - often for the better. Of course a lot of Gay pride is a rather well humoured attempt at getting a message across.....it also is not dependant on sexual orientation; it is for those who support equal rights for all people. you'll be trying to ban Glastonbury next - what's good enough for the Dalai Lama is good enough for me.... Far as I know Glastonbury is held well outside town in a field, not parading down High St. Not a good comparison. So homosexuals should be quiet and stay out of the High St? What other "groups" do you think should keep out or avoid gathering in High Streets? how's about Notting Hill Carnival or Diwali or the Helston Flower festival,? do you think legislation is the answer? Edited June 30, 2015 by cumgranosalum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thaibeachlovers Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 Seems to me many Homosexuals are not content to live quietly , they jump about the Streets acting like Pro Cycle Activists and Religious Nutters pissing Folks off the majority of quiet folk regardless of their cause. Dont they realize many of their persuasion dont like them ether. I never dissliked or noticed them till some Lefty Nurd told Me i Should. As I understand it, the reason they march in streets dressed as rainbows, waving placards and being very noticeable, is a response to centuries of homophobic violence and slayings, of being persecuted so much that they sometimes chose suicide to escape. Many of the rainbow crowd have themselves been physically harmed in homophobic attacks. The whole 'in your face' thing is a response to this long history of homophobic violence and murder, and being forced to hide in the shadows for safety. On one level the very public LGBT stuff is like saying "look, here I am, walking around in public in daylight and dressed in bright colours, surrounded by likeminded people, not ashamed and not afraid." I think it is outstanding, and inspirational. Similarly, the social media is full of messages of support for LGBT people, for the same reason, it is recognition that these people have endured violent persecution for a long time, and suffered so much just because they fall in love. But obviously, just being LGBT doesn't make you a good parent, everyone has to be screened and evaluated on their individual suitability. As I said in the start of this thread, I would have danced for joy if I'd been adopted by anyone nice who looked after me, regardless of LGBT etc. I don't really see how that would be different for surrogacy, but then you have all the potential problems relating to surrogacy, which I think a person should avoid and go straight for adoption. What a well thought out and well written summary of the key to this issue for many on this thread. I salute you sir. If you study the thread from the beginning you will see that although this article was primarily about surrogacy, the inevitable anti-gay bias came out, often from individuals who I guarantee never thought they were bigoted or meant to infer prejudice but through their statements clearly showed they were. I don't really blame them as it's just inherent in many (mostly of a certain age, upbringing or religion). The legitimacy of surrogacy was soon hijacked by the "it shouldn't be allowed for them" or 'as long as I don't see it' anti-gay brigade who although when hit time and time again with peer reviewed, scientific studies proving that the sexual orientation of the parents makes absolutely no impact on a child's well-being (it's all about the love, support and nurturing duh) still cling to their dinosaur belief that somehow LGBT people are not the same as you and me and therefore should be treated differently. This was the exact same sentiment and argument used against women when, heaven forbid, they wanted the vote and for blacks in the Civil Rights movement. As another thread so eloquently put it here, just substitute gay/homosexual with the word 'people' and just see how ridiculous your statements are and why you should rightly be branded bigot or downright homophobic. But confrontation rarely achieves change so hopefully these 16 pages or so of insight and thought have enlightened some of you to how science is continually proving your miss-informed and antiquated views wrong and how society is moving so quickly that it is no longer going to passively sit by whilst you spread your message of suspicion, hate and downright lies. Please also understand, no one is attacking your very real right to have an opinion, we would just prefer it to be slightly better informed and backed up by something more scientific than your 'feelings". For many, their self inflicted myopia will continue to dictate their views and nothing will change for them but for some perhaps the mountain of evidence provided by many on this thread will at least questions their (probably) long held views on the subject and hopefully start to open their mind a little bit. The world is quickly coming round to what many of us have known to be true for many years; and that is the LGBT community is actually people, who only want the same rights and even playing field that you and I have enjoyed for many, many years. I for one hope they get it across the world very soon and I'm also happy that they scream, shout and jump about the streets until they do. The thread is about exploitation of a womb in a poor country by westerners, not surrogacy per se or suitability of homosexual parents. Nice try at sidetracking though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thaibeachlovers Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 Seems to me many Homosexuals are not content to live quietly , they jump about the Streets acting like Pro Cycle Activists and Religious Nutters pissing Folks off the majority of quiet folk regardless of their cause. Dont they realize many of their persuasion dont like them ether. I never dissliked or noticed them till some Lefty Nurd told Me i Should. "Seems to me many Homosexuals are not content to live quietly" Why not try putting the word "people" instead of "homosexuals" and see how silly that statement is. loasds of people with an axe to grind take to the streets - that's how societies progress and change - often for the better. Of course a lot of Gay pride is a rather well humoured attempt at getting a message across.....it also is not dependant on sexual orientation; it is for those who support equal rights for all people. you'll be trying to ban Glastonbury next - what's good enough for the Dalai Lama is good enough for me.... Far as I know Glastonbury is held well outside town in a field, not parading down High St. Not a good comparison. So homosexuals should be quiet and stay out of the High St? What other "groups" do you think should keep out or avoid gathering in High Streets? I was commenting on the irrelevance of the comparison, not on High St parades per se, but you knew that, didn't you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaidam Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 Seems to me many Homosexuals are not content to live quietly , they jump about the Streets acting like Pro Cycle Activists and Religious Nutters pissing Folks off the majority of quiet folk regardless of their cause. Dont they realize many of their persuasion dont like them ether. I never dissliked or noticed them till some Lefty Nurd told Me i Should. "Seems to me many Homosexuals are not content to live quietly" Why not try putting the word "people" instead of "homosexuals" and see how silly that statement is. loasds of people with an axe to grind take to the streets - that's how societies progress and change - often for the better. Of course a lot of Gay pride is a rather well humoured attempt at getting a message across.....it also is not dependant on sexual orientation; it is for those who support equal rights for all people. you'll be trying to ban Glastonbury next - what's good enough for the Dalai Lama is good enough for me.... Far as I know Glastonbury is held well outside town in a field, not parading down High St. Not a good comparison. So homosexuals should be quiet and stay out of the High St? What other "groups" do you think should keep out or avoid gathering in High Streets? how's about Notting Hill Carnival or Diwali or the Helston Flower festival,? MAPs for a start, even though they have been successfully fighting a campaign to force legal and public acceptance of their sexual preferences. It's all part of the same predictable move. Prohibition, consent, promotion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rijit Posted July 1, 2015 Share Posted July 1, 2015 (edited) Xxxc love will cure all xxxx Edited July 1, 2015 by rijit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boomerangutang Posted July 1, 2015 Share Posted July 1, 2015 (edited) There are several ways to get a baby: >>> make one with your spouse >>> make one via casual sex >>> make one with steady lover >>> via rape or date-rape >>> trick someone, saying something like (woman speaking), "oh, you don't need a condom, it's my safe time of the month...." (happened to me, more than once). >>> make 'em in a test tube (me no like) >>> adopt >>> steal or enact a ruse (it happened with at least 2 Thai women friends of mine, and they're likely just two of thousands, just in Thailand) >>> get a sperm donor >>> get a rent-a-womb with the last two ways, there are several variations, depending on whether using viable sperm, or viable egg or both, from hopeful parent(s), or from others. The ways I dislike most are rape, date-rape, lying and test-tube. It's too bad adoption has become so burdened with red-tape and expense and time lags - because it can most often be a good opportunity for an otherwise unwanted kid. It's human nature (for the people and officials controlling the supply of available kids) to try and take advantage and make as much money as possible. Bureaucracy always seeks to become more bloated and convoluted. Edited July 1, 2015 by boomerangutang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnybangkok Posted July 1, 2015 Share Posted July 1, 2015 Seems to me many Homosexuals are not content to live quietly , they jump about the Streets acting like Pro Cycle Activists and Religious Nutters pissing Folks off the majority of quiet folk regardless of their cause. Dont they realize many of their persuasion dont like them ether. I never dissliked or noticed them till some Lefty Nurd told Me i Should. As I understand it, the reason they march in streets dressed as rainbows, waving placards and being very noticeable, is a response to centuries of homophobic violence and slayings, of being persecuted so much that they sometimes chose suicide to escape. Many of the rainbow crowd have themselves been physically harmed in homophobic attacks. The whole 'in your face' thing is a response to this long history of homophobic violence and murder, and being forced to hide in the shadows for safety. On one level the very public LGBT stuff is like saying "look, here I am, walking around in public in daylight and dressed in bright colours, surrounded by likeminded people, not ashamed and not afraid." I think it is outstanding, and inspirational. Similarly, the social media is full of messages of support for LGBT people, for the same reason, it is recognition that these people have endured violent persecution for a long time, and suffered so much just because they fall in love. But obviously, just being LGBT doesn't make you a good parent, everyone has to be screened and evaluated on their individual suitability. As I said in the start of this thread, I would have danced for joy if I'd been adopted by anyone nice who looked after me, regardless of LGBT etc. I don't really see how that would be different for surrogacy, but then you have all the potential problems relating to surrogacy, which I think a person should avoid and go straight for adoption. What a well thought out and well written summary of the key to this issue for many on this thread. I salute you sir. If you study the thread from the beginning you will see that although this article was primarily about surrogacy, the inevitable anti-gay bias came out, often from individuals who I guarantee never thought they were bigoted or meant to infer prejudice but through their statements clearly showed they were. I don't really blame them as it's just inherent in many (mostly of a certain age, upbringing or religion). The legitimacy of surrogacy was soon hijacked by the "it shouldn't be allowed for them" or 'as long as I don't see it' anti-gay brigade who although when hit time and time again with peer reviewed, scientific studies proving that the sexual orientation of the parents makes absolutely no impact on a child's well-being (it's all about the love, support and nurturing duh) still cling to their dinosaur belief that somehow LGBT people are not the same as you and me and therefore should be treated differently. This was the exact same sentiment and argument used against women when, heaven forbid, they wanted the vote and for blacks in the Civil Rights movement. As another thread so eloquently put it here, just substitute gay/homosexual with the word 'people' and just see how ridiculous your statements are and why you should rightly be branded bigot or downright homophobic. But confrontation rarely achieves change so hopefully these 16 pages or so of insight and thought have enlightened some of you to how science is continually proving your miss-informed and antiquated views wrong and how society is moving so quickly that it is no longer going to passively sit by whilst you spread your message of suspicion, hate and downright lies. Please also understand, no one is attacking your very real right to have an opinion, we would just prefer it to be slightly better informed and backed up by something more scientific than your 'feelings". For many, their self inflicted myopia will continue to dictate their views and nothing will change for them but for some perhaps the mountain of evidence provided by many on this thread will at least questions their (probably) long held views on the subject and hopefully start to open their mind a little bit. The world is quickly coming round to what many of us have known to be true for many years; and that is the LGBT community is actually people, who only want the same rights and even playing field that you and I have enjoyed for many, many years. I for one hope they get it across the world very soon and I'm also happy that they scream, shout and jump about the streets until they do. The thread is about exploitation of a womb in a poor country by westerners, not surrogacy per se or suitability of homosexual parents. Nice try at sidetracking though. As CLEARLY stated in my post "If you study the thread from the beginning you will see that although this article was primarily about surrogacy, the inevitable anti-gay bias came out", It's the anti gay bias I am referring to Sherlock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluespunk Posted July 1, 2015 Share Posted July 1, 2015 Seems to me many Homosexuals are not content to live quietly , they jump about the Streets acting like Pro Cycle Activists and Religious Nutters pissing Folks off the majority of quiet folk regardless of their cause. Dont they realize many of their persuasion dont like them ether. I never dissliked or noticed them till some Lefty Nurd told Me i Should. As I understand it, the reason they march in streets dressed as rainbows, waving placards and being very noticeable, is a response to centuries of homophobic violence and slayings, of being persecuted so much that they sometimes chose suicide to escape. Many of the rainbow crowd have themselves been physically harmed in homophobic attacks. The whole 'in your face' thing is a response to this long history of homophobic violence and murder, and being forced to hide in the shadows for safety. On one level the very public LGBT stuff is like saying "look, here I am, walking around in public in daylight and dressed in bright colours, surrounded by likeminded people, not ashamed and not afraid." I think it is outstanding, and inspirational. Similarly, the social media is full of messages of support for LGBT people, for the same reason, it is recognition that these people have endured violent persecution for a long time, and suffered so much just because they fall in love. But obviously, just being LGBT doesn't make you a good parent, everyone has to be screened and evaluated on their individual suitability. As I said in the start of this thread, I would have danced for joy if I'd been adopted by anyone nice who looked after me, regardless of LGBT etc. I don't really see how that would be different for surrogacy, but then you have all the potential problems relating to surrogacy, which I think a person should avoid and go straight for adoption. What a well thought out and well written summary of the key to this issue for many on this thread. I salute you sir.If you study the thread from the beginning you will see that although this article was primarily about surrogacy, the inevitable anti-gay bias came out, often from individuals who I guarantee never thought they were bigoted or meant to infer prejudice but through their statements clearly showed they were. I don't really blame them as it's just inherent in many (mostly of a certain age, upbringing or religion). The legitimacy of surrogacy was soon hijacked by the "it shouldn't be allowed for them" or 'as long as I don't see it' anti-gay brigade who although when hit time and time again with peer reviewed, scientific studies proving that the sexual orientation of the parents makes absolutely no impact on a child's well-being (it's all about the love, support and nurturing duh) still cling to their dinosaur belief that somehow LGBT people are not the same as you and me and therefore should be treated differently. This was the exact same sentiment and argument used against women when, heaven forbid, they wanted the vote and for blacks in the Civil Rights movement. As another thread so eloquently put it here, just substitute gay/homosexual with the word 'people' and just see how ridiculous your statements are and why you should rightly be branded bigot or downright homophobic. But confrontation rarely achieves change so hopefully these 16 pages or so of insight and thought have enlightened some of you to how science is continually proving your miss-informed and antiquated views wrong and how society is moving so quickly that it is no longer going to passively sit by whilst you spread your message of suspicion, hate and downright lies. Please also understand, no one is attacking your very real right to have an opinion, we would just prefer it to be slightly better informed and backed up by something more scientific than your 'feelings". For many, their self inflicted myopia will continue to dictate their views and nothing will change for them but for some perhaps the mountain of evidence provided by many on this thread will at least questions their (probably) long held views on the subject and hopefully start to open their mind a little bit. The world is quickly coming round to what many of us have known to be true for many years; and that is the LGBT community is actually people, who only want the same rights and even playing field that you and I have enjoyed for many, many years. I for one hope they get it across the world very soon and I'm also happy that they scream, shout and jump about the streets until they do. The thread is about exploitation of a womb in a poor country by westerners, not surrogacy per se or suitability of homosexual parents.Nice try at sidetracking though. Not quite true as the surrogate refused to give up the baby because the parents were gay. So this thread is about both surrogacy and rights of gay couples to raise a family. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cumgranosalum Posted July 1, 2015 Share Posted July 1, 2015 Seems to me many Homosexuals are not content to live quietly , they jump about the Streets acting like Pro Cycle Activists and Religious Nutters pissing Folks off the majority of quiet folk regardless of their cause. Dont they realize many of their persuasion dont like them ether. I never dissliked or noticed them till some Lefty Nurd told Me i Should. As I understand it, the reason they march in streets dressed as rainbows, waving placards and being very noticeable, is a response to centuries of homophobic violence and slayings, of being persecuted so much that they sometimes chose suicide to escape. Many of the rainbow crowd have themselves been physically harmed in homophobic attacks. The whole 'in your face' thing is a response to this long history of homophobic violence and murder, and being forced to hide in the shadows for safety. On one level the very public LGBT stuff is like saying "look, here I am, walking around in public in daylight and dressed in bright colours, surrounded by likeminded people, not ashamed and not afraid." I think it is outstanding, and inspirational. Similarly, the social media is full of messages of support for LGBT people, for the same reason, it is recognition that these people have endured violent persecution for a long time, and suffered so much just because they fall in love. But obviously, just being LGBT doesn't make you a good parent, everyone has to be screened and evaluated on their individual suitability. As I said in the start of this thread, I would have danced for joy if I'd been adopted by anyone nice who looked after me, regardless of LGBT etc. I don't really see how that would be different for surrogacy, but then you have all the potential problems relating to surrogacy, which I think a person should avoid and go straight for adoption. What a well thought out and well written summary of the key to this issue for many on this thread. I salute you sir. If you study the thread from the beginning you will see that although this article was primarily about surrogacy, the inevitable anti-gay bias came out, often from individuals who I guarantee never thought they were bigoted or meant to infer prejudice but through their statements clearly showed they were. I don't really blame them as it's just inherent in many (mostly of a certain age, upbringing or religion). The legitimacy of surrogacy was soon hijacked by the "it shouldn't be allowed for them" or 'as long as I don't see it' anti-gay brigade who although when hit time and time again with peer reviewed, scientific studies proving that the sexual orientation of the parents makes absolutely no impact on a child's well-being (it's all about the love, support and nurturing duh) still cling to their dinosaur belief that somehow LGBT people are not the same as you and me and therefore should be treated differently. This was the exact same sentiment and argument used against women when, heaven forbid, they wanted the vote and for blacks in the Civil Rights movement. As another thread so eloquently put it here, just substitute gay/homosexual with the word 'people' and just see how ridiculous your statements are and why you should rightly be branded bigot or downright homophobic. But confrontation rarely achieves change so hopefully these 16 pages or so of insight and thought have enlightened some of you to how science is continually proving your miss-informed and antiquated views wrong and how society is moving so quickly that it is no longer going to passively sit by whilst you spread your message of suspicion, hate and downright lies. Please also understand, no one is attacking your very real right to have an opinion, we would just prefer it to be slightly better informed and backed up by something more scientific than your 'feelings". For many, their self inflicted myopia will continue to dictate their views and nothing will change for them but for some perhaps the mountain of evidence provided by many on this thread will at least questions their (probably) long held views on the subject and hopefully start to open their mind a little bit. The world is quickly coming round to what many of us have known to be true for many years; and that is the LGBT community is actually people, who only want the same rights and even playing field that you and I have enjoyed for many, many years. I for one hope they get it across the world very soon and I'm also happy that they scream, shout and jump about the streets until they do. The thread is about exploitation of a womb in a poor country by westerners, not surrogacy per se or suitability of homosexual parents. Nice try at sidetracking though. looks like you're trying to dig yourself out of the hole you created. we are all aware of what the thread is about.....as I pointed out at the beginning, the other issue that inevitably will arise is homophobia....which you decided to chip in with....not as if anyone forced you to make those comments so its a bit late now to suggest you are being sidetracked.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al007 Posted July 2, 2015 Share Posted July 2, 2015 These people only come to thailand because they can not achieve in the USA their selfish desires, and when it goes wrong start blaming everyone except them selves They should have done what they wanted in the USA with the help of medical and legal advisers Al007 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rijit Posted July 2, 2015 Share Posted July 2, 2015 (edited) These people only come to thailand because they can not achieve in the USA their selfish desires, and when it goes wrong start blaming everyone except them selves They should have done what they wanted in the USA with the help of medical and legal advisers Al007 No reason why the gay couples money shoouldnt ensure good health coverage and obviousely whilst the s /mothers.welcome the financial opp the gay couple provide , That the domestic thai economy cant provide. The thai Legal system should make a definitive ruling yes, we allow or no we don't. Atm it seems no one knows . rijit Edited July 2, 2015 by rijit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted July 2, 2015 Share Posted July 2, 2015 No problem calling them selfish if you apply the same descriptor to a straight couple doing the same thing. Of course such couples go to lower cost countries to save money or find a country where it is legal. I suppose you could call it an extreme form of medical tourism. I don't think medical tourism per se is selfish especially if you can't afford to care any other way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted July 2, 2015 Share Posted July 2, 2015 (edited) #BringCarmenHome What's happening? Sweet lovely babies! https://twitter.com/hashtag/bringcarmenhome https://fundly.com/help-bring-carmen-home#updates I wonder what kind of VISA they're using. I don't think there is a trying to get my baby out visa category. Edited July 2, 2015 by Jingthing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dageurreotype Posted July 2, 2015 Share Posted July 2, 2015 No problem calling them selfish if you apply the same descriptor to a straight couple doing the same thing. Of course such couples go to lower cost countries to save money or find a country where it is legal. I suppose you could call it an extreme form of medical tourism. I don't think medical tourism per se is selfish especially if you can't afford to care any other way. I really don't believe you can lump people seeking cheaper medical procedures with renting womb space. I find both gay and straight couples' exploitation of the world's poor equally distasteful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted July 2, 2015 Share Posted July 2, 2015 I wasn't saying they were the same. I was saying they share the aspect of seeking cost savings with travel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrdome Posted July 2, 2015 Share Posted July 2, 2015 Can anyone spot something terribly wrong in this sentence? or is it just me. "A Florida man claims he and his husband ...." The damn world has gone quite mad. OK, I'll bite... They are not really from Florida??? Otherwise, no - I don't see a single thing wrong here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cumgranosalum Posted July 2, 2015 Share Posted July 2, 2015 Surrogacy in Thailand is just another example of the lack of ethics that is so prevalent in the Thai medical industry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
.thumb.jpg.bc523c85a8d558dbc282dca7a2e602c9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now