so your arguing that you don’t like Who said things within the article, but are not that interested in What they said?

Its call Ad hominem – and it is lazy!

now, rewrite it and tell us why what the Mail is saying is wrong – or can’t you do that?

It’s even worse than you think. They removed quotes from the original story from the reality-based community (e.g. Evan Harris) to deliberately rid it of any sort of balance.

An excellent post James

I thouroughly enjoy Daily Mail and Christian bashing as much as you do, but what is lacking here are any solutions. The Daily Mail are suggesting that from the available research, children who have both father and mothers do best. If you have anything (peer reviewed reearch) which contradicts that please bring it. If not, I direct you to any Jeremy Kyle or Trisha or Ricki Lake show where they give free DNA tests in the “Whose you’re Daddy Game Show”.

I’m neither Christian, nor Homophobic – just rational.

I hate to say anything in support of the Daily Mail- I have no doubt you are correct that they, and many of their readers, are homophobic.

However I don’t think it is necessary to be homophobic to question the wisdom of giving lesbians IVF treatment. Homosexual relationships are, by their nature, aberrant and one of the obvious consequences of this is that they do not produce offspring.

Because technology can now be used to allow women to conceive outwith the sexual act (and, in time, it will probably be capable of creating children with the genetic make up of any two individuals) that does not mean that we should automatically permit such procedures to be carried out without first having an ethical debate which takes the interests of the potential child as it’s priority.

F0ul

I fancy that James won’t bother rewriting it just because of some passing troll. And one who lovingly refers to himself as Thatcher’s Child. You daft sod.

Maybe you can trot on over to ConHome and lecture your own sort? You bore us stupid. )

Aaron, the fact that he is a Conservative Troll does not make him wrong.

You either can give a good argument why he is wrong or you will have a boring blog where you preach to the choir.

I wonder how DM sales would drop if all the ‘outraged lefties from Crouch End’ stopped reading it?

Lilliput,

Actually I will. It was lazy of TDM to source their criticism only from one side of the argument – almost as if they were deliberating shaping the debate.

This is not journalism. This is lazy tabloid hackery.

This, I believe, was James’ real point.

I wonder how DM sales would drop if all the ‘outraged lefties from Crouch End’ stopped reading it?

Heh. Good point.

But then I wonder how many sales The Guardian would lose if all the faux-outraged Tories stopped reading Dear Polly?

“The Daily Mail are suggesting that from the available research, children who have both father and mothers do best.”

They don’t say that. Which is lucky, because nor does the available research. Seriously: there is no serious peer-reviewed research which suggests children with same-sex parents do worse than children with opposite-sex parents. None.

I am, of course, over the moon at the news that I might actually be recognised as a full parent to any child my partner carries, but the hole-poker within me noticed that ‘close blood relatives’ to the mother are excluded.

Which is interesting to me: if, as the Mail claims loudly, the father doesn’t even need to be in a romantic relationship with the mother, then there shouldn’t need to be an incest clause. I’d make a great second parent to my girlfriend’s baby: why (theoretically) couldn’t I be the second parent to my niece?

That aside, I am SO DAMN EXCITED about what this means for my family in potentia, that I can’t even bring myself to be angry at the Mail for their blatent homophobia or their inability to write a coherent article. I’m not even sure who they think has been dealt a blow, here.

#10:

But Jeremy Kyle, Trisha and Ricki Lake are totally acceptable peer-reviewed studies!

Or something. I’mnot sure what Lilliput’s point it.

I didn’t know what ‘aberrant’ meant, so I looked it up…

1 : straying from the right or normal way
2 : deviating from the usual or natural type

…and it sounds about right for IVF. It isn’t the normal, usual or natural way babies are concieved. As for it being right or not, that depends on how much of a bastard you want to be.

Now I’m trying hard to think of a tasteful way to pun on the word bastard in a thread about IVF. Thanks, Sim-O

>>wouldn’t happen to be the same Dr Trevor Stammers who is head of the Christian Medical Fellowship, would he? Oh, he is.

*headdesk*

Saw the headline. Saw their attitude to it. Sighed. Someone should collect two year’s-worth of these lies and misquotes and then sue Dacre into oblivion.

chavscum: I wonder how DM sales would drop if all the ‘outraged lefties from Crouch End’ stopped reading it?

Good to see you defending the DM’s homophobia then. No surprise there.

This is a good example of why the UK needs something like the US non-profit mediamatters.org that systematically monitors conservative lies & distortions in the media. The results are then communicated to the offending media outlet itself, other journalists & interested NGOs & members of the public.

Or maybe someone should just organise a demo outside Dacre’s house.

Gee – The first thing in this drivel that caught my eye was the writer – if that is what you call yourself – calling someone or group morons. Hah I thought here is an intelligent piece full of ad hominems by a socialist hack butt kissing Harriet Harmen fan. But then I read more. It wasn’t just a dads group who want to see their children he was railing about it was also church types. Hmmm…..I said to myself – whose the moron here. I’m not overly religious myself but what has that got to do with the socialist plan? You are entitled to your opinion their bubba but if you want to attack people instead of the idea that fathers are becoming irrelevent then go for it. But don’t expect most sane people to go along with it. You need to get out more with regular people.

Mike, the writer who called FFJ morons (Barry Collins) is not the same as the one who wrote this drivel (Fiona Macrae). Strange as it may seem, TDM employs more than one writer.

I am, of course, over the moon at the news that I might actually be recognised as a full parent to any child my partner carries, but the hole-poker within me noticed that ‘close blood relatives’ to the mother are excluded.

Debi I’m bemused.

Is your partner also your sister?

If you also had a child would you both be Daddy as well as Mummy or would you take turns?

Or would you both be Aunties?

Sorry to be flippant but you begin to see why there are concerns for the offspring involved.

Just to respond to a few points:

Lilliput, Aaron is right – I wrote this more to point out the distortion on the part of the Daily Mail. I’m not a scientist or qualified to comment on the merits of the story. I just think it’d be nice if, y’know, the Mail had asked a real child psychologist or something.

Henry – word on the street is that mailwatch.co.uk is relaunching soon and will be “content rich” and will keep the Mail in check á la Media Matters.

And Chavscum, I actually live in Kilburn

Pagar, given the quality of comments I’ve seen you give, I’m not in the least bit surprised you’re having difficulty keeping hypotheticals from interfering with your speculation about my private life.

@17
I would hope that any such organisation would monitor ALL lies and distortions in the media, not just conservative ones. Or not just leftist ones. I’m not trying to make a political point – just a small one about not imagining one’s own side (whichever it is) is purer than pure.

Mr. O’Malley:

You sound like a young inexperienced person who has a sense of socialist idealism. There were quite a number of “real” parents and people who responded to the daft marxist/socialist idea the DM wrote about. My unscientific guess would be 98% thought it was “beyond the pale.” You seem to think only of self as do the acolytes of this silliness, as opposed to the children who will have to live with the persecution they will face over who their parents are. Try and think about it seriously before getting all ideologically wrapped up. It can make for clearer more thoughtful prose.

Helen,

Why would monitoring any news source require the taking of sides?

When it comes to newspapers, there really isn’t one that represents me to the extent that I’d call myself on its ‘side’.

I make that five Catholics (half a dozen if you count Dacre too), with an evangelical and a Jew thrown in for “balance”. The “Daily Tablet” would be a better name for the newspaper.

I don’t think you can necessarily draw any conclusions about Baroness Deech based on that quote or her absence from two votes early last year. I think it’s reasonable to suggest that the birth certificate ought to be a record of the child’s genetic heritage if at all possible, even if the second slot says “anonymous sperm donor”, and the question of who are the child’s parents (in the sense of caring for them as they grow up and having legal responsibility) should be separate. It’s not as if everyone’s mummy and daddy stay married until they are 18 even if they are the biological parents, is it?

As the token Christian on here can I just point out that we are not all homophobic or prejudice? Many of us are quite comfortable with homosexuality and get as pissed off as anyone else when people like Christian Medical Fellowship and Christian Voice claim to speak for all of us.

…the children who will have to live with the persecution they will face over who their parents are.

Here, let me rephrase:

“Homophobia exists, therefore homosexuals should be denied rights.”

Because it’s not the bigots who are the problem, it’s those darned gays.

(Akela, I don’t think anyone’s claiming all Christians are homophobic. If they are, they’re wrong.)

Am I right in thinking the father doesn’t have to be on the birth certificate?
If this is right, then it doesn’t matter from a biological point of view who is on it. The ‘second’ parent just becomes a legal thing and then two people, same sex or not become joint parents, custodians, whatever.

If I’m wrong and the biological father has to be included on the certificate then surely it just needs another box or two for the ‘legal’ parents and ‘biological’ parents, and it ends up technically no different to an adopted child with it’s birth certificate and certificate of adoption.

There is no difference between heterosexual couples and same sex couples. Both types of relationship can break up, or have poor role models, or can make wonderful families too.

Sexuality bears no connection to ones ability to bring up a child.

You sound like a young inexperienced person who has a sense of socialist idealism. ~ Mike Murphy

I’m sorry, but that’s not an argument at all. Should blogs only be written by sour-faced sceptics who lack the energy and idealism of youth?

Do you know how po-faced you sound?

I take Helen’s point about monitoring all lies and distortions. However, the reality is that the print media – especially the the tabloids – is overwhelmingly right-wing & is not known for being truthful or accurate. The main offenders seem to be The Mail, Express, Sun & Evening Standard.

@ 25
Only that the comment @17 referred specifically to “conservative” lies and distortions:

“the US non-profit mediamatters.org that systematically monitors conservative lies & distortions in the media. “

Helen,
As far as the DM is concerned, it’s arch rival is the Guardian. They may not be “purer than pure” or totally unbiased but it does try to be fair and never scaremongers. The Daily Mail and The Sun are by far the worst for that and are both conservative newspapers.

” Seriously: there is no serious peer-reviewed research which suggests children with same-sex parents do worse than children with opposite-sex parents. None.”

Guys seriously, this is a very new phenomenon and there isn’t even 1 generation to do any research on – what we do have is concrete evidence of people suffering because they don’t know who their biological Daddy is – yes its on Trisha et al (Debbie – you can laugh but you can’t deny it). Have any of you seen Mamma Mia for Christs sake!

I did a 1 second google search and already came up with this – yes its American, but I guess they are human too so we can compare!

http://www.marriagedebate.com/pdf/imapp.crimefamstructure.pdf

Therefore, it appears to me that the Dailymail, used what evidence there was – where else do you expect them to get any opposing viewpoint?

I beg to differ on the alleged fact there is no peer reviewed research that shows children do better with two parents, the fact is that 0ver 80% of prison inmates are from single parent, and by this I have to say female headed, ‘families’
But then, the Purpose of undermining the Family unit, christianity, fatherhood was always to destabilise western society.
It is called Frankfurt subversion.
In the 50′s Western socialists enquired to the Soviets, how can we help destabilise Western society so as to aid the eventual takeover by the Soviet bloc, the Frankfurt school of Psychiatry suggested undermining the very pillars of society with rapant liberalism, undermine the church, the family, promote 24 hr drinking, relax the drug laws, prohibit parents and teachers from disciplining children, promote social disharmony and dissorder, promote the mass immigration of diverse cultures.radical feminism.
Sound familiar, if you had want to destabilise society, this is exactly hwo you would do it.
It is called Frankfurt Subversion, Critical Theory.
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=65E0D7ADEF94226A

Lilliput, is there a reason you are consistently mispelling a name that’s right in front of you on the screen? Is it just that you’re too lazy to actually read what’s there, or are you deliberately trying to be irritating?

Guys seriously, this is a very new phenomenon and there isn’t even 1 generation to do any research on

So you’re happy to deny rights to an entire demographic with no research to back up your position? Good to know.

And no, I will not accept ‘Trisha et al’ as a valid sociological study. Not when step and adoptive parents have such a long history of being just as effective and beneficial to the child, if not more so, than someone whose gametes got lucky.

Even if social scientific research ‘proves’ that kids function better with a traditional mother and father set-up, this is still no license to take the findings at face value.

Biased sampling, methods and techniques?
The pre-conceived worldview of the researcher(s)?

As Max Weber once claimed, the problem with the social sciences is that normative views unavoidably make all studies un-neutral. As we can’t know everything, your worldview will always shape your agenda and choice for social scientific enquiry.

For me, the hiding of theological sources by the Daily Mail is one thing. But it doesn’t conceal the difficulties of achieving objectivity in the social sciences.

Good grief the morons are out in force today.

There is data that shows children do better with 2 parents. This is mostly thought to be down to money, and a caring environment. When they have one parent, money and a caring environment, they generally also do fine.

There is NO DATA AT ALL to suggest that two female or two male parents are worse than one of each. Or that polyamorous groups of more than 2 are worse than precisely 2.

A child does not need to know their biological father in order to be okay, if they have loving support from even one parent. The relationship is the thing, not the numbers or the sexes.

Once again – no proof at all that lesbian couples are worse parents. At all. The fact that this was made to sound like a scientific finding and then shown to come from manipulated statements by biased (religious) non-scientists does not mean we hate Christianity when we complain. It’s not that they’re Christian, it’s that they’re agenda-driven non-scientists.

The Daily Mail are suggesting that from the available research, children who have both father and mothers do best. If you have anything (peer reviewed reearch) which contradicts that please bring it.

I’ll have to dig out the relevant papers as soon I get the hard drive out of my bust laptop but the evidence that refutes the Mail’s arguments lies in the relatively few studies (to date) of same-sex parenting, which uniformly show that when you control for factors such as social background, income and all the other standard indicators of social class, children brought up in two parent same sex households thrive just as well as those brought up in so-called traditional families.

In fact, what the research actually shows that children brought up in same-sex households actually exhibit slightly better social skills than other kids but otherwise there are no significant differences, not even in their adoption of conventional gender roles.

They’re also no more likely to be gay than children broughr up in ‘traditional’ families either, just to kill off another myth.

There’s nothing special about the supposedly traditional nuclear family, its what actually goes on inside families that actually makes all the difference.

“I beg to differ on the alleged fact there is no peer reviewed research that shows children do better with two parents, the fact is that 0ver 80% of prison inmates are from single parent, and by this I have to say female headed, ‘families’”

I tried looking up your 80% statistic and most of the results seemed to relate to Ann Coulter, do you have a reference for it? However, I do have a follow-up question; what percentage of that 80% were children conceived by IVF? That is, after all, what the article is about. I’d say there are plenty of reasons not to assume that single parents who conceived by IVF should not necessarily be bracketed with all others, not least the hugely prohibitive costs involved. These are people desperate to have children, after all, which might, one suspects, have an impact on how devoted they are as parents. So, what percentage of prison inmates are from single parent households AND whose mother received IVF treatment?

Furthermore, it misses the point anyway; as Steve B points out, we’re not talking necessarily about single parents here, but possibly gay couples; my understanding of the current (limited) research on two straight parents vs two gay parents is that there’s no reliable evidence either way yet.

Two points:

(a) Yes, the Mail is a homophobic rag and the criticisms they are making seem to be based upon superstition, but

(b) What exactly is a birth certificate for if not to register the child’s biological parents?

We don’t need a piece of paper to prove a child exists, the existence of the child is proof enough. A document which includes the child’s biological inheritance has a useful role in medical treatment or to prevent inadvertant incest later in life; it also has a legal purpose where child maintenance is concerned.

A seperate legal document detailing who has legal parental rights or responsibilities might be more appropriate than trying to fudge a document invented at a time when families were more strictly defined.

“So you’re happy to deny rights to an entire demographic with no research to back up your position? Good to know.”

I’m not denying them the right to childhood – their biological nature is. What I’m denying is the opportunity to circumvent biology when I have no proof that the consequences are not going to be harmful to the offspring involved.

And no, I will not accept ‘Trisha et al’ as a valid sociological study. Not when step and adoptive parents have such a long history of being just as effective and beneficial to the child, if not more so, than someone whose gametes got lucky.”

“Blood is always thicker then water and no matter what happens if you don’t know who your Daddy is, you will always feel a gaping hole. How many people wanting DNA tests done would make it a valid study for you?

I think what is happening here is that biology, science and psychology are not submitting to the lofty liberal ideas of LibCon and its hard to accept

Debi – mea culpa – there is no excuse for incorrect spelling of names. Words yes – but names never!

41: a birth certificate was always based on convenient legal fictions, not on actual biological parenthood – the general estimate is that about 10% of kids historically had a different biological and legal father.

42: when I have no proof that the consequences are not going to be harmful to the offspring involved – so, presumably, in 1978, when there was no proof that the consequences of IVF with two married, opposite-sex parents, were not going to be harmful to the offspring involved, you’d have banned it?

Incidentally, I don’t see a real distinction between naming non-biological parents on the certificate immediately after the child is born, and altering the birth certificate of a child whose parents remarry at a later date.

In both cases the second parent named has no biological relationship and the birth certificate would be a matter of wishful thinking rather than genetics.

And as I stated earlier, I don’t see why a birth certificate is necessary if it is not a record of the child’s parentage. A seperate legal document (or parenting contract) recording those with legal responsibilities for the child and which can be rewritten to adapt to changing circumstances would be more appropriate.

So you’re happy to deny rights to an entire demographic with no research to back up your position?

Debi

Having a child is not a “right” like freedom of expression or assembly.

It is not even a “right ” like joining a union or drawing your benefits.

In fact it is not a right at all.

For most people, whether planned or not, the birth of a child is a gift- some would say a gift from God but an elemental gift nonetheless.

It is not a gift to be taken lightly and it is certainly not a gift to be abused. So couples in sexual partnerships that cannot result in a child being conceived naturally need to be very clear why it is they want a child (when it cannot be the genetic amalgam of the partnership).

If it is only an attempt to prove that their sexuality can be as fruitful as that of a heterosexual couple (the claiming of a “right” for the sake of it) they most certainly should not have children. And I do get the impression that, for many homosexuals, having children is just another affirmation on the road to validating their lifestyle.

John b (43): if that estimate of 10 percent is correct (and why do all estimates arrive at that same magic number?) then that is all the more reason for a parenting contract rather than a birth certificate.

Whenever the issue of gay parents arrises we get hysterical articles about the death of the family, but gay couples tend to be as conservative as everyone else and so what we get is a rather wet extension of the laws governing heterosexual families to include homosexual couples.

Were there are any genuine challenges to the nuclear family – such as polygamy -you’ll see homosexuals and feminists can be as intollerant or unadventurous as any other traditionalists.

pagar @ 45: see me @ 42. Do you believe that, before there was clear evidence showing that children conceived to married opposite-sex parents using IVF would not be harmed, that procedure should have been banned?

Shatterface @ 46: I’d tend to agree with you about the parenting contract, I’m just pointing out that that, and not a matter of genetic record, is historically what a birth certificate has been.

I’m not denying them the right to childhood – their biological nature is. What I’m denying is the opportunity to circumvent biology when I have no proof that the consequences are not going to be harmful to the offspring involved.

Oh, I see. You think the best way to tell if someone’s a good parent is whether or not their genitalia function. So I’m guessing you want IVF and adoption outlawed completely, because we’ve got no evidence that adoptive and step parents aren’t more harmful to children than, say, Chantelle Steadman and Alfie Patten.

Except, oh, wait, we do have evidence, in the form of generations of people brought up by parents not their genetic ancestors with no ill effects. D’oh. And no matter how often you say “lots of people want to know who their biological father is”, if you’re going to make it a legal requirement that the biological father always be recorded, you’re going to have to back that up with Actual. Research. that proves that not having this information has a significantly detrimental effect on a child’s wellbeing.

And no, the relative viscosities of blood and water is not evidence.

I think what is happening here is that biology, science and psychology are not submitting to the lofty liberal ideas of LibCon and its hard to accept

But see, Trisha is not a biologist, scientist nor a psychologist. This is what I’m trying to get through to you.

pagar #45
Fuck you. Just – fuck you. You do not get to tell me what my motivations are for wanting what most people can take for granted, and you do not get to tell me that this (false) motivation makes me automatically unfit to be a parent.

I’ll admit I have no idea how difficult it is to work a penis, but from the outside it doesn’t look that hard. Will someone tell me what’s so magical about being able to insert it in the correct hole that automatically makes someone a better parent than someone who doesn’t have one?

I find it interesting how the political ideology or sexual orientation can rationalize or indeed dismiss certain truths. Take this quote “There’s nothing special about the supposedly traditional nuclear family,” a truly Marxist comment but the nuclear family of mom and dad represents typically 90% of the worlds families and is part of the natural order of things all religious and Darwinian concepts or dogma aside. Yes some hetero couples seek IVF but that’s not the issue.

The discussion in the DM was about the birth certificate – the record of a child’s biological inheritance and ancestry. Just for genealogists alone it is indispensable let alone all the other medical and legal issues. Is the non-bio person being placed on it going to be prepared to pay child support as the dad invariable does currently,. That will make for interesting and somewhat complex legal disputes. The partnership of the two people on the certificate will have a 50% chance or greater of failing and so the social engineering by your socialist government will come home to roost sooner rather than later.

The issue isn’t necessarily about same sex couples but could be. That’s certainly not my concern. Loving parents are the first and most important requirement. There are many, many peer reviewed studies showing children do best in an environment of two involved parents- even if they are apart. A recent study shows contact must be maintained at least 40% of the time in separated families to have a beneficial impact on a child. Anything less has negative consequences.

There are also many that show children in a single female household do far worse and poverty will exacerbate it but it is not the only determinative factor. In the USA and Australia mothers are the greatest predators of children by far in terms of killing and abuse. A single parent female home is the most unsafe environment for a child. Check here to start. http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/stats_research/index.htm

46 – “I do get the impression that, for many homosexuals, having children is just another affirmation on the road to validating their lifestyle.”

It’s not a ‘lifestyle’ it’s a sexual orientation and no one needs ‘validate’ their sexuality to anyone, especially bigots.

Has the Mail and Darce apologised for the massive outbreak of measles in this country over the last few years? The Mail put children in danger by their irresponsible campaign against the vaccine for measles. So no one should take them seriously when it comes to child welfare.

Like most Conservative media The Mail is for stupid people and brown shirts.

There actually is research that shows that the children of homosexual partners do slightly worse than those of heterosexual couples.

The data also show that this is solely down to the homophobic abuse these children receive from the more moronic members of society.

To use this information as the Daily Mail rentaquotes do is the equivalent of saying that black parents should be prevented form having children because of the racism that their children will encounter.

nuclear family of mom and dad represents typically 90% of the worlds families

That is simply wrong, the majority of families in the world are extended families, of a group or tribal nature.

The nuclear family is an aberation of the second half of the 20th century as baby boomers refused to live with mum and dad any more and moved out of the extended family into suburban isolation.

For most people, whether planned or not, the birth of a child is a gift- some would say a gift from God but an elemental gift nonetheless.

Oh fuck off – reproduction is nothing more than a very basic biological function, so let’s cut the sentimental crap right out.

As far as registering the biological parentage of a child is concerned, the only place where there is actual need for that is on the child’s medical records, where it may have some future relevance should a biological parent be found to carry a particular genetic disorder which could affect their offspring (or their offspring).

Beyond that, John is perfectly correct in suggesting that the information that appears on the birth certificate relates solely to the establishment of legal rights that may not have any actual foundations in biology in a significant number of cases.

Akheloios – I guess you’d better tell that to all your ancestors, should you have such an opportunity in the after life, going back a few more centuries than you have indicated.

Mike Murphy

Is it any wonder your wife divorced you if you treated her as arrogantly as you treat anyone who disagrees with you. Being a father, does not mean you have the right to be a fascist.

You sound just like all the other bitter fathers for justice morons. Go back to your cave and learn to respect woman, then, we can take you seriously.

Take this quote “There’s nothing special about the supposedly traditional nuclear family,” a truly Marxist comment but the nuclear family of mom and dad represents typically 90% of the worlds families and is part of the natural order of things all religious and Darwinian concepts or dogma aside.

Sorry?

As Akhelios has already pointed out, extended families are still very much the norm, globally, and were still the norm in most working class families as recently as 50 years ago. The so-called ‘traditional’ nuclear family, as we understand it today, is more or less an invention of the Victorian/Edwardian middle classes.

As for it being part of the natural order of all things religious, you really have no idea what you’re talking about do you?

Islam permits polygamy.

Heredity in Judaism is matrilineal not partrilineal.

Extended families are the norm in Hinduism and Sikhism.

And the very idea that religion, an artificial social construct, has any kind of natural order is complete nonsense. If you’ll looking for ‘the natural order of things’ then take a look at the animal kingdom where monogamous nuclear family structures are very much the exception rather than the rule in the vast majority of species.

So Unity you are suggesting that someone who commits paternity fraud, which may be as low as 2% or as high as 10% should dictate whether the birth certificate has any biological foundation.

You are not only a revisionist but a very muscular social engineer. It been said a person can rationalize anything under the right circumstances.

Keep in mind first and foremost the Birth Certificate from its origins in China, Egypt, et al was used as a legal document showing parentage amongst other information. If your name is on it as a parent be prepared to be legally obligated to uphold your responsibilities for support of the child. Don’t try and weasel out of it later by saying you are not the bio parent. It won’t wash.

“If your name is on it as a parent be prepared to be legally obligated to uphold your responsibilities for support of the child”

Yes. That’s the whole fucking point.

Mike @ 55:

That doesn’t actually mean anything. Seriously . How does saying ‘tell that to your ancestors’ actually refute what Akheloios says about extended families?

Pagar @ 45 ;”And I do get the impression that, for many homosexuals, having children is just another affirmation on the road to validating their lifestyle” just out of curiosity what is this particular generalisation based upon, i can only assume that is derived from a suitable amount of personal experience and not just crude stereotypes forwarded by the media.

“sexual partnerships that cannot result in a child being conceived naturally need to be very clear why it is they want a child” Whilst you have conviently used this to fit your arguement you seem to have ignored the fact that this includes infertile heterosexual couples and i can only hope you feel the same standards must be apllied to them.

Also im terms of studies there will always be external factors and variables and questions related to sample size, particuarly with something as complex as parenting and therefore is it realy right to presume gay people can never raise children when if you applied a similair decision making process im sure research could be used to suggest just about any demogrpahic would make unsuitable parents.

Just a last point in relation to Christian viewpoint it is just as ignorant as homophobia itself for anyone to presume as some people do that all Christians are homophobic, as yes whilst there are elements of scripture that can be used to go against it the same can be said for almost all subjects in almost all texts and im every religous person i’ve encountered so far has in no way been remotely homophobic and it may be best to presume that those who are represent the minority view.

Debi, Unity please, you reduce yourselves to the same morons you hate by making inane comments like:

“Oh fuck off – reproduction is nothing more than a very basic biological function, so let’s cut the sentimental crap right out.

pagar #45
Fuck you. Just – fuck you. You do not get to tell me what my motivations are for wanting what most people can take for granted, and you do not get to tell me that this (false) motivation makes me automatically unfit to be a parent.

I’ll admit I have no idea how difficult it is to work a penis, but from the outside it doesn’t look that hard. Will someone tell me what’s so magical about being able to insert it in the correct hole that automatically makes someone a better parent than someone who doesn’t have one?”

Its not about being the better parent – its about the child having the right to know who their biological father is – and don’t tell me how happy adopted children are – because there are millions of them around the world searching for their biological parents – why do you think that is?

The issue here is not about stopping people having children – lesbians and gays have complete freedom to get pregnant the way heterosexual people do – lets see how far the commitment to being parents go from the very beginning?

“You are not only a revisionist but a very muscular social engineer. It been said a person can rationalize anything under the right circumstances. ”

Well, you have obviously rationalized the idea that you should talk shit for ever more.

So Unity you are suggesting that someone who commits paternity fraud, which may be as low as 2% or as high as 10% should dictate whether the birth certificate has any biological foundation.

No, I’m suggesting that the willingness to take on legal responsibility for a child need not be be founded on biology, hence we have adoption and step-parenting, amongst other things.

Adoptive parents and step-parent are no less the parents of the children they bring up for having no direct biological connection with the legal offspring, a concept that I would have thought to fairly uncontroversial. After all, it not as adoption hasn’t been a common feature of human society throughout its entire history.

Unity:

You can’t read very well for comprehension. That’s a really important component of learning and understanding. Try finding any mention of religion associated with my comments. i indeed dismissed religion as a notion completely. You are indeed a muscular revisionist of the highest order.

You also haven’t really visited any of the countries you discuss to see just how many nuclear families of a mom a dad and kids exist. In China, the most populous country on earth, it is the most dominant form of family and on my visits I never encountered any other form except for temporary visiting by relatives.. On my trips to India the 2nd most populous nation on earth it appears to be the most dominant form of living arrangement. That other members of the family live under the same roof for a period of time temporarily is immaterial. That is an ongoing cycle. Its the mom dad and children that do matter – or are you trying to change that as well. I find it interesting those of you who might fit outside this kind of relationship try to find excuses to diminish it. Why is that?

Archeological digs have found nuclear families, determined by DNA, going back thousands of years.

The issue is birth certificates so lets try and stay on topic.

Sally:

Now now keep your shirt on. No need for insults like that. Try logic instead.

Sally: Did I also mention that Lesbians have the highest rate of DV – even moreso than hetero couples. Is that your temper showing perchance?

That other members of the family live under the same roof for a period of time temporarily is immaterial

That is the textbook description of the extended family dimwit.

Akhelios:

Another one whoi can’t keep his mouth in synch with his brain. Is insulting your way to emphasize a pont. So my daughters family comes to visit for two weeks and leaves to go home and thats your version.

Try and think things through rationally and please – try and lose the name calling. My 10 year old does that in the school yard and gets a detention for it. How old are you? Do you need a detention?

Social discourse requires common sense sometimes analytical thinking and a cool head for you to remain credible. Do you have any of these? One of these? Two of these? None of the above? Pick one as it requires no thinking at all.

Debi @48

Fuck you. Just – fuck you

OK, I am prepared to accept from the vehemence of your response that you do not see this as an intellectual discussion and I apologise if I have caused any offence. A hormonal response is not at all inappropriate in this instance- just remember the child has rights too.

Unity @54

Oh fuck off

Sorry if you found my writing over flowery but Lilliput likes it. In truth, I concede that the moment of childbirth did not seem that magical for me.

HC@61

just out of curiosity what is this particular generalisation based upon

I was merely pointing out that when homosexual couples use the word “right” to justify their having children, a family becomes part of the continuum of gay rights that have been fought for and won over a number of years. This concerns me.

this includes infertile heterosexual couples and i can only hope you feel the same standards must be applied to them.

I absolutely do.

‘Its not about being the better parent – its about the child having the right to know who their biological father is – and don’t tell me how happy adopted children are – because there are millions of them around the world searching for their biological parents’

I think that the point you are missing, which Debi seemed to be trying to make, is that foster children who find themselves without adequate care or unhappy/unfulfilled in their foster homes tend to see finding their biological parents as a key part of their identity, but for many others, it’s simply a matter of curiosity. If the children have role models – if one parent is able to support them fully – then they won’t idealise the absent parent and feel incomplete now, will they?

It’s rather disingenuous of you to cite Jeremy Kyle et al. because the whole point of those shows is that the people featured are dysfunctional because they have not received proper parenting. They have been cherry-picked for their dysfunction – they wouldn’t be on the show otherwise, would they? It also goes without saying that most of them (the single parents) are probably not well-off enough to provide everything for their kids. Besides, the people on JK seem to be more money-centred than worried about ‘blood being thicker than water’ – the DNA tests often involve children too young to worry about ‘who my father is’ and the ones asking for the tests are either the men (so they can support their children) or the mothers (for the same reason).

It is true that children can feel the absence of a parent, but that’s only because it’s been a term of abuse since forever (how old is the insult ‘bastard’?!) (and what Akheloios says at #52 is also v. important). Just because we are taught that the nuclear family is ‘normal’ doesn’t mean nothing else can also be ‘normal’. And what about people whose biological parents abuse them/put them through incest? Consider Dave Pelzer, for example. Partisans of the ‘nuclear family’ never seem to have an answer to the likes of Josef Fritzl.

‘A hormonal response is not at all inappropriate in this instance- just remember the child has rights too.’

Pagar, you have just proven Debi’s point in #48 – congratulations!

The extended family has always acted as a temporary residence for additional family members, for any number of reasons. A classic case is temporary habitation for migratory work, where extended family members move to follow seasonal work, and move into the local family branch household for the period of work.

You also have temporary residence for any number of other reasons, when you look at the Family seat model of British Aristocracy, the household might have a varying number of members from week to week as members visit the family home.

Temporary residence is a hallmark of the extended family.

As for China, until the reforms of Deng Xiaoping, China was largely based on the extended family model. Since then a large % of the population has moved into a kind of Krupp style corporate tribal structure.

It’s not an extended family any more, but it is a large number of people coming together, where there is communal living.

With the recent economic problems, all of those ex-factory workers are going straight back to the countryside and the extended family.

If you want to give examples, don’t contradict yourself in your own blithely superficial examples.

Pagar: I’m going to use simple words so that you can understand.

>>Debi @48: Fuck you. Just – fuck you
(First of all: Right with you on that one, Debi.)

>”OK, I am prepared to accept from the vehemence of your response that you do not see this as an intellectual discussion

No. By saying “just another affirmation on the road to validating their lifestyle” earlier, you’ve revealed yourself to be basing your position entirely on prejudice and not evidence. There is no evidence, but you clearly also have an anti-gay agenda. You back this up later by complaining about gay rights.

Since you’re coming to this argument already decided, and various of us on here pointing out that the evidence against gay parenting doesn’t exist won’t change that, you are the one who won’t properly enter into a debate.

This isn’t a thing to intellectually ponder. As you can see from Debi’s and others’ reactions, it affects real people, right now.

>>”Lilliput likes it”.
Not all of us think this is a positive recommendation, ever.

Akheloios:

An excellent response backed up by research. Thank you.

Steve B – How do you know – I could be an award winning writer………

Amrit – you missed the point. I’m not talkinmg about fostered children wanting to know who their biological parents are – because a child can only be fostered if their paarents have not given up parental rights – so obviously these children know who their parents are! I’m talking about adopted children – children who have no idea who their genetic parents are? Whether they are well parented or not – their is always a want to find out where you come from – do you know any adult adopted children?

I don’t understand this extended vs nuclear family business – its always been one man and one women making a baby – it doessn’t matter who else lives in the house! What am I missing here?

*sigh*
It’s always funny watching people like Mike and pagar, who have clearly seen grown-ups talking about politics and want to play at it too – seeing them trying to use the normal techniques of rational discourse is a bit like watching a three-year-old ‘helping’ in the kitchen.

I think, however, I might have to bookmark this thread as a textbook example of what ‘male privilege’ means.

Even leaving aside the utter stupidity of many of the examples given (someone asks about scientific evidence and the *JEREMY KYLE SHOW* is brought up in response?), your response when someone else is given *a right you already had* (and birth certificates have *NEVER* had to have the actual biological father listed, as can be shown by the fact that 20% of people are in fact mistaken about the identity of their biological father) is to assume that they must have some nefarious motive for wanting that right – even though you’ve never once wondered why a straight couple would want to adopt, for example – and also to assume that anyone who disagrees with you shares their sexuality. Note that ‘sally’ never once stated her sexual preferences – you just assumed she must be gay.

Then, when you are called out for making unsubstantiated assumptions about other people – insulting ones in the case of your assumptions about motives – you just put this down to hormonal little women who don’t understand rational debate like you clever big men. You’re willing to tar entire groups with the same brush with no evidence whatsoever, yet get mortally offended at being called ‘dimwit’ (as you should, as the correct term isn’t ‘dimwit’ but ‘patronising bigoted imbecile’).

Please, please, go away and learn about basic concepts of logic, the problems with relying on anecdotal evidence, and basic civility. You might also want to try having a clue about the subject you’re ‘debating’ before jumping in head-first, and if you want to get really advanced you might want to learn how to read what someone else has written before responding to them.

Think I’m being insulting? Perhaps feeling patronised? Good. Now you know how your style of ‘argument’ feels when you’re on the other end…

Liliput:

What you’re missing here is that in extended families, parenting is generally a communal activity undertaken by the female members of the family operating within a matriarchal family hierarchy.

In such families, the father and other male relatives often play only a minimal role in the raising of children.

So while the child has only one biological mother and father, they are actual parented by a collective of female relatives of which their mother is but a single member, and often under conditions in which the mother may not be the primary caregiver.

“Whether they are well parented or not – their is always a want to find out where you come from – do you know any adult adopted children?”

My wife was adopted, and has never been interested in finding out who her biological parents were. Admittedly, that’s only one data point, and thus statistically worthless – but still better than your *zero* data points and unsupported generalisations…

@78 Just to add, that at puberty, children went through a right of passage event, and subsequent care of male children was done by the male members of the extended family.

pager

When you typed the url “liberalconspiracy.org” into your browser, didn’t it occur to you that this site might not be for you? That actually, the reasoned liberal folk who frequent that site, might not want to be joined by someone like you? An intolerant insular twat.

Now I’m sorry if my language and tone upset you. But honestly, considering the way you have conducted yourself on this thread, I’m prepared to take that risk.

Now do be a good fucktard, and sling your hook.

Liliput:

Well, I was talking about adopted as well as foster children.

And I don’t think anyone is turning this into ‘extended vs nuclear family’, they’re simply saying that the idea that nuclear families are the norm and always have been and are hence the ‘right’ way is bollocks, by demonstrating as Unity and Akheloios have done, that the extended family is actually an older familial model. Not that that means we all still live with our parents, grandparents and aunts/uncles. Just goes to show change doesn’t have to be scary .

53

That is simply wrong, the majority of families in the world are extended families, of a group or tribal nature.

Exactly

I was reading down with the intent of saying the exact same thing.

For the idiots and arseholes that think it’s vital to know who your natural father is. My father doesn’t, never did. Until the day of his funeral, I was under the impression that my paternal grandfather was my biological paternal grandfather. He wasn’t, my maternal granmother mentioned it in a “what a great parent he was to your Dad, even though he wasn’t his”.

Y’know what? My father was more succesfull in educational attainment and socio-economic acheivement than either of his half siblings as well.

My step daughter is being raised succesfully by her mother, her father (in a house about 10 minutes walk away) and me. Jointly. Y’know what? If Jennie had instead moved in with another woman? I reckon she’d be raised just as successfully. Probably moreso if it was Debi.

And when Debi and her partner do chose to have kids? There’ll be plenty of others in the extended family and friends groups of both genders helping out and similar. Guarantee that. Friend and family are essential in raising a child successfully, this “nuclear family” bullshit is, and always has been, just that.

So please, go take your ahistorical, ill informed bigoted ranting and fuck off back to the Daily Mail comments box.

Or cite some sources, do some thinking, show some genuine, peer reviewed research from accepted sources. And no, Ann Coulter doesn’t count.

“Admittedly, that’s only one data point, and thus statistically worthless – but still better than your *zero* data points and unsupported generalisations…”

Another one data point here. My mother and father separated shortly before I was born and I met him once on my first birthday. I have no desire what so ever to try find him, he doesn’t figure in my sense of identity and oh yeah I was raised in an extended family with mother and maternal grandparents.

“When you typed the url “liberalconspiracy.org” into your browser, didn’t it occur to you that this site might not be for you? That actually, the reasoned liberal folk who frequent that site, might not want to be joined by someone like you? An intolerant insular twat.”

Too many brown shirt trolls on this site.

Come on guys – are you the types of liberals that accept anybody as long as they agree with what you say?

The evidence that adopted kids want to search for their biological parents is obvious from the huge amount of webspace dedicated to it – I did a 2 second google search and just came up with this – and I don’t have time to do more but there is plenty available

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/adopted-women-seek-birth-parents-724040.html

And futhermore – if we acknowledge that the extended family of numerous female carers has disintergrated in the 21st Century – how much more important does a father become?

I was just reading all the posts on this thread with great amusement, when I got to the ‘Post a comment using the form below’ notice.
Beneath this are the following statements;

* We have a tight comments policy aimed at fostering constructive debate.
* We believe in free speech but not your right to abuse our space.
* Abusive, sarcastic or silly comments may be deleted.
* Misogynist, racist, homophobic and xenophobic comments will be deleted.
* Please familiarise yourself with our comments policy.

I wonder if anyone has read the above before posting? I believe that several posters have accused others of not being able to read what is in front of them; has anyone?

I think you can have a hell of a problem with this and not be homophobic or misogynist or any other label the left likes to beat their opponents into silence with.

Look if we are talking EQUAL rights, and if we are talking that the biological fathers rights and responsibilities are terminated with this then so be it. I don’t know if it’s the best policy but time will tell. But if mothers in these relationships get to
1. Have a “change of heart” and decide that they were not gay all along
2. Cut off parent 2/father/whatever you want to call it
3. Get child support from both parent 2 AND the biological father
Then we will really have the special rights that conservatives rant about. Why? Because straight parents (IV or not) would never have those sorts of rights to two sources of income.

@88

1. Have a “change of heart” and decide that they were not gay all along
2. Cut off parent 2/father/whatever you want to call it
3. Get child support from both parent 2 AND the biological father

I just don’t see the difference between this set of circumstances and a woman leaving her male partner, entering into a new relationship and expecting child support from her former partner as well as enjoying the financial benefits of the new relationship.

The issue at hand is universality, that a couple, no matter how arranged, should recieve exactly the same rights any other couple.

If a homosexual couple want a child then they should be the parents on the birth certificate, exactly the same way as if a heterosexual couple become parents.

Akheloios, please let me enlighten you – Human Rights are a 20th century western mentality man made concept. Human’s can give other human’s these rights only if it is within their power.

At this current stage of our technological environment – our biology dictates that it requires one egg cell from a female and one sperm cell from a male to make a child. The name of these male and female donors – if known – are the ones that go on the birth certificate – that is because it should be a reflection of the truth – that these are the biological parents.

Now you can shout and scream or beg as long as you like for your right to be biological parents but it is just not so. Don’t blame us – blame biology, the universe, the creator – if you believe there is one – but you cannot ask for a right that just doesn’t exist!

Actually, right now the difference, is that I’ve read about situation #3 with a biological sperm donor and two lesbians. I haven’t seen #3 occur with a straight couple. If it happens with a straight couple and a sperm donor, let me know about it. Seriously, I blog about that sort of crap going on in the family court system. I’ve also seen situation #1 and #2 occur several times in the states, which is pretty much a pile of it in my mind.
Again I don’t have a problem with two females or two males filling out for the IVF birth certificate if the biological father or mother has voluntarily terminated their rights and been relieved of all responsibilities as well. If they have not then we have a whole new issue going on.

An appeal to biology is a valid defence of your position if and only if you have been consistent with biology all along. Human beings are and always have been a tribal group who communally raise their young, pointing out the immediate sources of maternal and paternal DNA, rather than the evolutionary concept of the genetic frequency in a given population, is to deny the entire biological heritage of modern science.

The ‘parents’ of an individual are the ones that give direct care to that individual, whoever the immediate genetic ancestors of that individual may be.

“The ‘parents’ of an individual are the ones that give direct care to that individual, whoever the immediate genetic ancestors of that individual may be.”

Right up until the time that the state wants to collect its share of the money, at which I’m suspecting that getting the natural fathers might become a rather top priority. Actually I take that back: there are volumes of fathers who have been the victims of paternity fraud who haven’t been taken off the hook despite the fact that their fathering was based on a premise that was a lie. So you may have something.

The law changed in 2004 to remove sperm donor anonymity http://www.opsi.gov.uk/SI/si2004/20041511.htm

Every child has the right to know who their bological father is and therefore their genetic history.

Akheloios, I have no idea what you are on about?

And in my mind you can’t just use the word parents like that. There are biological parents, surrogate parents, adoptive parents and step parents.

What if G-d forbid something happens to my sister and her husband and my husband and I end up raising her children – I am the direct carer yes – but we are in no way their parents – can you recognize that?