A controversial new bill that removes the word 'father' from birth certificates in recognition of lesbian couples who have had children through IVF is being put before the NSW Government.
There's a certain amount of to-ing and fro-ing from both sides of the argument. But one irrefutable fact amongst all this discussion seems to have been forgotten.
Life cannot be created without both a male and a female. I.e. whether you're two carpet munchers or not, you need sperm from a male to make it happen. Therefore whether you like it or not, the child still has a father. This is not up for discussion, nor is it avoidable.
And it's further confirmation of my claim that no-one has children for the child's sake. It's the ultimate act of selfishness. "I" want a child. "I" want to be pregnant. I,I,I, it's all about you - never the child.
Moreover, I am sick and tired of you lot whining about being accepted as normal. Newsflash, weirdos - you're not fuckin normal; there's clearly something wrong with you and frankly, as far as I'm concerned, by your selfish actions you're denying a child it's BASIC HUMAN RIGHT. That being, the right to have a mother and father. THAT'S normal. That facilitates the upbringing of a NORMAL child. Of course that's not to say it's guaranteed; some people shouldn't be allowed to breed on general principle, I understand that, but in the current climate of out of control kids, they need all the normality they can get and two mothers or two fathers...ISN'T. End of story.
Munch as many carpets or punch as many turds as you like, but leave innocent children out of it. They're not playthings to show of to your PC associates. They are innocent babies who deserve every chance in life they can get.
Such fun that will be at the PTA when the kid introduces his mummy and mummy or daddy and daddy. Or if he's getting bullied in school will it be, "I'm going to tell my mother's butch lesbian lover on you". Or, "my Daddy's boyfriend?"
PC aside, this is so very wrong, so very, very wrong.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
I agree with you regarding children being pawns in a game.It encroaches on the subject --so called "normal couples" wanting designer babies--to satisfy their egocentric personalities.
Nature brooks no interference in her affairs. These actions will eventually lead to disaster in my humble opinion I await the fallout re my comment!!
And then it would seem, as in the case of the often referred to on this blog dogs, after the pregnancy's been milked for all it's worth, and the goo-goo, gaa-gaas are all done, and it's maybe 10 years in, the once 'doting' parents (who, it has to be said due to Peter bloody Costello's "one for your country and we'll give you 5 grand' only have the kid for a plasma TV) seem to lose interest because it's actually too much work and the wee bastards go uncontrolled.
But I digress; this particular post is about gay couples and the fact that a human right is being denied.
And the fact that however many offspring you have by IVF, a father will always still exist...somewhere.
Gay men need a woman to create life; gay women need a man. It's as simple as that!
Say what you want here, Gladiola. Don't worry about whiners
As is said in the Good Book--"Male and female created he them".
He's probably thinking now--"Well it seemed a good idea at the time"!
Punctuation mustn't've been invented in the days of the Good Book!
Y'know when you were a kid and you got yourself into a situation that reached the harrowing point of no return, and you thought, "Oh shit, now I'm for it!,?"
I think that's maybe what the Big Man's thinkin now.
Or maybe, "Again!,?" (RE: Sodom and Gomaorrah).
Or maybe He's just washed his hands of the whole affair and is busy with another society...who knows...
There has been further developments. It turns out that the birth mother has her name on the certificate (obviously) and the natural father (because, as I've said already, this cannot be deleted - it was his sperm after all, whether or not the individual knows) has the choice to remove or stay.
The mothers "partner" then has to apply to a court to have ger name replaced on the certificate.
But what happens if they cannot agree? The girlfriend and the natural father?
Are we looking at a potential Law and Order episode where one of the two gets "whacked" to ensure the other's name will be on the form?
A convoluted, and dastardly plan to remove the competition?
Glad I'm not THAT kid!
I am quite laissez-faire when it comes to issues like this. I don't have a problem with lesbian and gay couples raising children. I know several homosexual couples who are doing a fine job of it and their children are quite well adjusted ... moreso than some of the children of heterosexual couples that I know, as a matter of fact ...
... but I just wanted to say that I love the term "carpet muncher." LMAO. It is nearly as funny as the term "muff diving." Hahahahaha.
Well, I did say that some shouldn't be allowed to breed. And I agree that homos in theory and at times, practice in fact, can and do, I suppose, bring up children to be 'normal'. (Suppose we should define 'normal').
But really, at the heart of it - it's about those PC people, demanding rights that I don't agree they should have - frankly.
The point of the piece was the removal of the father's name from the birth certificate just so two 'munchers' can claim the child as their own. Well it isn't their own. It's one of theirs, granted, but not the other. And as I've said, a male is a prerequisite to such a creation and that's one thing that simply cannot be removed.
Once you've circumvented God Himself, and can conceive sans male, as it were, then fair enough, but until then...wind your neck in and stop being so fucking selfish. Try thinking of someone else for a change.
Moreover, what happens in biology class when conception is being taught and little Johnny is faced with the confounding situation of his two mums (or dads)? "Why don't I have a daddy?" What are you going to tell him? We are woman, Johnny - we don't need men, so tough shit on you little man. And what does that teach him for later in life?
No, it's full of danger, this path and mark my words, it's a mistake.
Post a Comment