Gay marriages

[ChocolateMoose]

Originally Posted by KeirazBabe

Exactly.. if not anything the legalistaion of marriage for gays will lead to more families therefore more children being adpted.. think of the poor lonely children.. and GRAT examples of gay fathers are Barry & Tony Drewitt Barlow who have twins and a third child (identical to the male twin just 1 year and a half difference)... all three biologically belong to the dads..v interesting.read up on them love them! hehe

I have an issue with them...they had surrogate twins, a boy and a girl - they had agreed all the boys have one of the Father's, and the girls the other. Trouble is the boy had an identical twin. And they didn't want that, so froze his identical twin and had him later. Now, Aspen (aged 4) has a nineteen month old brother (Orlando) who is identical to him.

I don't disagree with gay people having children at all, but the identical twin part of the story is TOTALLY AND UTTERLY WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[duckula]

Who cares who won.

[DragonRat]

Eh, I may have been raised to think that marriage is a religious institution, which I do believe it is. I don't a contractual obligation between two people to love, honor, and cherish each other as anything that developed from a primitive standpoint; it had to be built on the idea that one man and one woman must bind themselves spiritually, emotionally, and physically together.

Marriage is not a social contract of any sort, and it rather developed from religion. Primitive man had the alpha male, and he procreated however he wished. Marriage demands the loyalty and fidelity of one man to one woman, and vice-versa. The concept of the one man-one woman union is a very religious idea. If it's a contract, then it's a contract steeped in very religious connotation.

As for the legalization of gay marriage, it doesn't really help nor hinder the improvement of the family unit. Family issues is a whole other topic, and it relies on the ability for the parental units to be responsible parents. Gay or heterosexual, parents will be parents - whether good or bad.

[Pygmalion]

They're trying to make gay marriages illegal here as well-not suprising since our prime minister licks Bush's ass.
I may be biased being gay but...making gay marriage ilegal is like denying they exist. Its not that I WANT to get married since as Hazzle says its just a legal term but its the principal.

[Hazzle]

Originally Posted by DragonRat

Eh, I may have been raised to think that marriage is a religious institution, which I do believe it is. I don't a contractual obligation between two people to love, honor, and cherish each other as anything that developed from a primitive standpoint; it had to be built on the idea that one man and one woman must bind themselves spiritually, emotionally, and physically together.

You're getting being married and being wed mixed up. Primitive man "wed" his wife, he didn't "marry" her...it's a technicality but it's stuff like that that I've spent a while honing...sorry but "marriage" is purely legal..."weddings" are social bindings between man and woman, which may or may not have their roots in some form of religion or morals.

Marriage is not a social contract of any sort, and it rather developed from religion. Primitive man had the alpha male, and he procreated however he wished. Marriage demands the loyalty and fidelity of one man to one woman, and vice-versa. The concept of the one man-one woman union is a very religious idea. If it's a contract, then it's a contract steeped in very religious connotation.

Again getting being "wed" and "married" mixed up...in medieval times the two were actually distinguished by the church itself, but it seems the church now is either too blind or stupid to realise that being "wed" and being "married" are different. The word "marriage" merely means the combination of elements OR the legal bond between a man and a woman. Now you may say "man and a woman, must mean it can only occur between a man and a woman" but that'd be suggesting that gay people have less legal rights than straight people, and you wouldn't say that now, would you? As marriage is the legal union between man and woman, and as gay people have the same rights as straight people, ipso facto gay marriages ARE legal, and anyone who says otherwise is blatently discriminating against gay people, and clearly doesn't understand logic or law.

As for the legalization of gay marriage, it doesn't really help nor hinder the improvement of the family unit. Family issues is a whole other topic, and it relies on the ability for the parental units to be responsible parents. Gay or heterosexual, parents will be parents - whether good or bad.

That was more targetted at Ducky's claim that gay marriages hamper procreation.

[ryan]

Even after all of this bickering back and forth, there is but one thing we can all agree on.


Haz smells bad.

[Hazzle]

Originally Posted by ryan

Even after all of this bickering back and forth, there is but one thing we can all agree on.


Haz smells bad.

I reckon agreeing on how bad I smell could be the road to peace in the Middle East...but...

:icon_spam

[keira loves lipgloss]

Originally Posted by Hazzle

I reckon agreeing on how bad I smell could be the road to peace in the Middle East...but...

:icon_spam

you cant talk your spamming :icon_spam :icon_spam

[apoggy]

Lipgloss, this is your last warning. If a person is deemed to be spamming then an admin or mod will sort it out, you spamming withthat is only serving to be hypocritical. Any more spam out of you and you will be banned for the 3 days set by barrington

[DragonRat]

Must I pull out the old dictionary definition trick, Haz?

wed ( P ) Pronunciation Key (wd)
v. wed¡Pded, wed, or wed¡Pded wed¡Pding, weds
v. tr.
a. To take as a spouse; marry.
b. To perform the marriage ceremony for; join in matrimony.
c. To unite closely: a style that weds form and function.
d. To cause to adhere devotedly or stubbornly: He was wedded to the idea of building a new school.

v. intr.
a. To take a spouse; marry.



mar¡Pried ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mrd)
adj.

a. Having a spouse: a married woman; a married man.
b. United in matrimony: a married couple.

I fail to see how these two words are syntactually different from another. You could blame the church all you want for their blindness or ignorance, but back in the primitive days, did men 'wed' other men, or did women 'wed' other women? If so, why would they? The concept of binding each other in union is to procreate and help the species grow and survive.

[KeirazBabe]

Originally Posted by apoggy

arrogance doesnt suit you haz, neither does posting off topic

Why i personally think it makes him look quite flattering lmao

Story of Tony & Barrie..very intersting.. from www.pinkparents.com

Whatever you accuse Tony and Barrie Drewitt Barlow of, and they have been accused of plenty, my immediate and lasting impression of them is that they are totally clear about what they want in life. They are obviously besotted with each other, have several millions behind them, own a fabulous home with several top marquee cars in the drive and are blessed with a loving and supportive extended family. For them the icing on their gilded cake is to have fathered and be looking after their pretty, healthy boy and girl twins, Aspen and Saffron, now 22 months old.



The day I visited at their invitation, the twins were playing by the stables in the back garden with the grandparents and our chat was punctuated by normal family sounds in the background. But what a story they told me!



I had arrived, unwilling to judge them on the basis of the TV documentary and screaming tabloid headlines I remembered from 18 months or so ago. I left feeling that here were two genuine blokes. The one thing which distinguishes them from so many others, apart from their luck in money, is their tenacity and determination to live a dream. Hold on to your seatbelts because their story is a bumpy ride! It starts back in 1994 when they had been together for several years, were living in Essex and felt that their lives would be better if they were able to have children around. They saw an advert in a local Essex paper from Social Services looking for foster carers and became the first same-sex couple in the county to go through the approval process.



After two years of regular meetings, they were turned down flat by the Approvals Board who cited their lack of previous experience and the inappropriateness of a same-sex couple for foster caring! They were, however, encouraged to pursue foster care for a ‘Special Needs’ or disabled child!



They carried on with the process. They thought they could and should! They met supportive social workers, learned sign language and went before the Approvals Board again. They became friendly with a little boy called James who was severely affected with Downs Syndrome and wanted to offer him support. The Board again gave a flat NO. No explanation was given and in this system, 'two strikes and you are out’ operates. They were out!





Interestingly, according to the guys, none of the black, gay or older couples ended up with children, only the blindingly ‘normal’ couples.



So……. January 1996. Barry and Tony are in debt, depressed, living in Chelmsford and hundreds of miles from their families in Manchester. One day, Barry is messing about on the Internet and types a load of parenting related keywords into a search engine. Up comes details of American surrogacy clinics. Barry telephones one and asks, “I’m in L.A. next week. Can I pop round and see you?” The Agency asks for the name of Barry’s wife and when he says ‘boyfriend’, they reply, “We don’t help gay couples here, but I do have a Friend who set up 'Growing Generations’, the first gay and lesbian surrogacy agency.” Tony and Barry were intrigued. They had already spent five months donating sperm to a lesbian on a potential parental share agreement but it hadn’t worked so they decided to pursue this exciting new avenue.



At this time their business fortunes started to turn around. They had set up a new science related business from scratch and it was starting to hatch golden eggs. ‘Growing Generations’ claimed to manage the whole process and asked for a deposit of £49,000 to start the process. If we are talking money, the couple have probably spent £200,000 from start to finish! But this does include airfares, hotels, gifts and other expenses. They had already investigated ‘purchasing’ a child for adoption from American agencies who specialise in supplying (often Mexican) babies from around £50,000. They had rejected this option.



For those readers not familiar with surrogacy techniques, here is the science bit. More experienced readers can pick up the story at the next paragraph. The process is quite straightforward. The guys left their sperm on ice for six months (to rule out HIV). All in all, 26 eggs were harvested from Tracy, the egg donor mother. All were fertilised and 10 embryos developed. Fertilised embryos were then implanted into a surrogate mother called Theresa. No pregnancies resulted. Another surrogate called Rosalind was found and two boy and two girl embryos were implanted. Three pregnancies resulted but broke away after 7 weeks, leaving two growing babies.



In addition, Barrie's sperm had been ‘treated’ to only produce girls and Tony's to produce boys. At 20 weeks, they were delighted to discover that Rosalind was carrying a boy and a girl! Simple huh!!



Barry and Tony could not have cared less what sex their child or children were. They were ecstatic at the prospect of realising their dream. Their problems, however, were just beginning!!



The surrogate mother started to act very strangely four or five months into the pregnancy. She became very demanding about money, attention and involvement. She kept saying she was miscarrying and requested that a cook, housekeeper and nurse be employed to look after her. Tracy, the egg donor, monitored the situation but the couple felt exploited and powerless, unable to do anything other than ‘humour’ the surrogate lest she disappear to Canada, Mexico or elsewhere - perhaps even ‘selling’ the children to the kind of adoption agency they had previously investigated. At this time, frantic media speculation began. It started with an ex-employee approaching the Sunday Mirror and then Womans Own, selling an interview the boys had done to the Daily Mail and Daily Star. The children had not yet been born and they were being harassed by every newspaper and TV station in the UK and dozens from all over the world.



The twins were born in early December 1999. Barry and Tony walked into the labour unit, took their children and threw money onto the surrogate mother’s bed. They have never spoken to her since and claim that she is manipulative and scheming. In America, they couldn’t come home with the children because they had to sort out birth certificates and passports which they managed over a four week period. During this traumatic time, their hotel rooms were burgled, their video cameras were stolen and the stolen film footage subsequently shown all over Europe on TV.



They flew home on the 27th December with their two children and two nannies. Five burly (and apparently extremely attractive) immigration officers came on to the plane and escorted them off. Immigration insisted that the children be deported back to the USA. After extended airport–based legal formalities, the twins were granted a 28-day stay and this has subsequently been amended to indefinite leave to stay in Britain – although the children remain US citizens.



Barry and Tony signed an exclusive deal with the Mail on Sunday deciding that a ‘warts and all’ story would be a way of bringing some closure to this saga. Of course, it has done nothing of the sort. They are still constantly harassed by the media and cannot go to the supermarket without other shoppers staring and often coming up to touch the children uninvited.



Would they do it all again ? Yes! Yes! Yes! They may even have more children. They are not sure. Aspen really seems to take after his father and Saffron shows a lot of her father’s personality. Tracy, the egg donor biological mother, is friendly and visits regularly. She will probably have created around 20 children with her eggs, including two in her own family with her husband Jeff.



The boys have some simple advice for anyone following in their footsteps. Check the potential status of your surrogate to ensure you will actually get your child. Make sure you go through an agency and get a good lawyer! Finally, a strong mental attitude is essential. To quote Barry, "if you are a typical professional gay male with a house full of IKEA furniture and you have scraped together £30,000 or £40,000, do it!"



Aspen and Saffron are truly scrumptious, beautiful children and the boys seem very happy. If this is a strange story of our times, it seems to have love at its heart. Doesn’t it?


xXx

[ChocolateMoose]

"Exclusive deal with the Mail on Sunday" eh? Haha! Think thats wrong. It was all in The Times as well.

It is indeed a touching story, and I congratulate them that they have stood up to all the ridicule that they have been subjected to from people who believe that gay people shouldn't have children. The only thing I disagree on is the Orlando part of the story. That is totally, and utterly in all possible ways unacceptable and wrong.

[Hazzle]

Originally Posted by DragonRat

Must I pull out the old dictionary definition trick, Haz?

If you do insist on doing so, kindly use the Oxford English Dictionary. I refuse to accept a definition from anything else, as it's THE official dictionary of the language.

But...you're right...wed and married are not different. Thus gay people should be allowed to both wed AND marry. Care to see why?

Wed under your definition...and I note you conveniently chose to bold those that aided your argument and ignored those that went against it...means to combine...nothing about genders.

And even your definition of "marriage" does NOT use genders. It says couple and "married man", "married woman" but it says nothing to the effect that the couple must be a man and a woman.

Ipso facto, using YOUR own definitions...you're wrong, I'm right...end of. If anything all you did was strengthen my argument, meaning you religious zealots will have to come up with an entirely new word to describe a male-female union as distinct from ANY union. Thanks for proving my case that men can marry men.

Oh...and primitive man actually never "married" or "wed" in the sense we currently understand it. Because primitive man chose one woman to bear his children, and then proceeded to bugger the other men when his wife was knocked up...y'see homosexuality is as old as the hills. Heck noone's addressed the fact that psychologists have shown all people are inherently bisexual (one part being driven by the need to procreate, the other by lust and sexual pleasure...women often find women make better lovers, and anal stimulation, supposedly, is the best a man can get, to nick a phrase from the Gillette ads).

Try again maybe?

[DragonRat]

Your wonderful commentary on anal stimulation aside, I don't really think my definition bolsters your argument any more than it would not mine. As for the denotative argument, I find that the Oxford Dictionary is more agreeable to your standards, whereas the Merriam-Webster and American Heritage Dictionaries agree with my definition. As is, one can see the irony and contextual differences between British and American understanding of marriage :P.

[Hazzle]

Originally Posted by DragonRat

Your wonderful commentary on anal stimulation aside, I don't really think my definition bolsters your argument any more than it would not mine.

Always pleased to be of service to your sex life chief. Oh, and it bolsters my argument as it doesn't specify gender, so why must marriage be between a man and a woman? Marriage merely means the coming together of two people according to your definitions, and a gay couple are both people. See?

As for the denotative argument, I find that the Oxford Dictionary is more agreeable to your standards, whereas the Merriam-Webster and American Heritage Dictionaries agree with my definition. As is, one can see the irony and contextual differences between British and American understanding of marriage :P.

Aye...sorry as an Englishman the Oxford is THE English dictionary...we spell the words correctly . Y'know colour (which is direct from the Old French) rather than color (which is from latin, ironic given English has very little direct link with latin, despite the roman invasion).

And yes...it is ironic that the two nations should have a different idea of marriage...I believe the divorce rates speak for themselves

[Stormbringer]

Regarding gay marriages, I see nothing wrong if a gay or lesbian couple want to marry. If you are in love with someone, should sexual preference be an issue? I don't think so. I guess at the end of the day it is all subjective, but I personally have no problems with gays or lesbians or their rights, including marriage.

[havoc]

Here's my perspective.

I'm a gay female in a long term relationship. I live in New Zealand, where there is no legal gay marriage (or weddings...or whatever). The law here is that if you are in a de facto relationship for more than 3 years, that relationship has the same legal weighting. So, being that I have been in an adult relationship with my gay partner for this amount of time, in the eyes of NZ law, if we broke up it would be treated as a "divorce".
Quite cool aye? I think so.
However. This doesn't take effect for stuff like home loans (which is where we are running into trouble).
Now, NZ is currently looking at introducing a Civil Union Bill. Which would mean that my love and I could go and sign this piece of paper, effectivly "marrying" us in the eyes of the law. The bonus in this for me is that it's not a religious ceremony at all. Doesn't stop us having a party or whatever though, to celebrate!!
Would this "Civil Union" bother anyone here?
Assuming the fact we're gay doesn't disgust you.

[PhoeniX]

I think gay adoption may not be a good idea because if a child were at school they are bound to be bullied. and possibly have a ruined life because of it but gay marrage is fine.

[duckula]

I have reconsidered my position. They can marry, adopt and all the rest. This is a prime example of deck chairs on the Titanic.