Oh Isn't It Wonderful - Elton John And His Husband

[Ice_nine]

I read that the child was born of a surrogate mother so that takes away the familiar "at least the child is not dying of starvation/AIDS in some faraway mystical African land" or something like that BUT you know, there are many children that are born into less than ideal situations, even many that are born from heterosexual married couples. Yes having two men or two women to raise a child/children is not ideal but neither is a child born into extreme poverty, abuse, or anything like that. At the very least one could look at this new child and be thankful that he will most likely be taken care of and loved, which is a good thing.

Bemoaning the takeover of teh gayz is just hacking at the branches of a much deeper problem don't you think?

[ThePenciledOne]

[quote name='Ice_nine' timestamp='1293605679' post='2194881']
Bemoaning the takeover of the gays is just hacking at the branches of a much deeper problem don't you think?
[/quote]

This is gold.

[Lil Red]

no one has a 'right' to a child. this is what happens when you introduce contraception into society. people think that they can decide best for themselves when a child is appropriate in their lives, thus relegating a child to be seen not as a gift, but a right. it's just another celebrity trend of single women, and gays, and single men, having a child without a spouse and a stable home to raise children in. (and of course, we don't want any 'sticky' problems by adopting a handicapped child, or an older child, so we must create a new child).

the problem didn't start with teh gayz. it started with the introduction of contraception, and was spurred on by no-fault divorce.

(sorry if my logic isn't clear, it's 12:30 a.m. and my brain is firing on short circuits.)

[Semper Catholic]

[quote name='Lil Red' timestamp='1293607635' post='2194888']
no one has a 'right' to a child. this is what happens when you introduce contraception into society. people think that they can decide best for themselves when a child is appropriate in their lives, thus relegating a child to be seen not as a gift, but a right. it's just another celebrity trend of single women, and gays, and single men, having a child without a spouse and a stable home to raise children in. (and of course, we don't want any 'sticky' problems by adopting a handicapped child, or an older child, so we must create a new child).

the problem didn't start with teh gayz. it started with the introduction of contraception, and was spurred on by no-fault divorce.

(sorry if my logic isn't clear, it's 12:30 a.m. and my brain is firing on short circuits.)
[/quote]

I don't see a problem here. Yeah everyone gets mad when Brangelina brings home another Ethiopian baby, but other then it being a little socially cringing, there's nothing wrong with it. Kid will probably have a great life and a loving home.

There's no problem here, seeing as statistically it's been shown the child won't be anymore inclined to homosexual tendencies as straight children.

Blaming (a lack of a) problem on contraception is disingenuous, as there are plenty of married, straight, Catholic couples who purposefully try to have a baby at any point using NFP or on the flipside by refraining from intercourse until they are ready to have a child.

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='StMichael' timestamp='1293566263' post='2194807']

For the child, he or she will amount to no more than a pet, which is saddest of all.
[/quote]

This is pretty judgemental, and completely wrong. I bet it makes you feel good to assume that other groups of people are so far below you that they are not even capable of loving a child like you can.

newsflash, you can totally love your children, if you love your spouse or not. hell, you can love your children if they are adopted, if you no longer love their mother/father/your spouse, heck you can even love your children if you are a single parent or a widow. Love for a child you are raising does not have to pass through a SO before it gets to the child, it takes a much more direct route.

[quote name='rachael' timestamp='1293576439' post='2194832']
This attitude disgusts me. You may not agree with their politics, beliefs, or way of life, but how can you say this about their child?
[/quote]

agreed.

[MIKolbe]

Perhaps I am too cynical in my old age, but I agree (in a way), with what St. Michael is saying. First, where I do not agree...
1) I do not see the child as a pet. I agree, that is just wrong.
2) I do not think they are incapable of loving a child.

But, how I do agree (at least in the 'gist' of how I read St. Michael) is that this adoption reeks, to me, of a publicity stunt. 'You must not only accept me, you must celebrate me (and my chosen lifestyle).' I see this child being a litmus test/ and/or proof (as he grows up) of how normal and wonderful homosexuality is. I see this being purposefully 'put' on this child by Mr. John and whomever the other guy is. This is where I see St. Michael's pet comment being more accurate. I just see this child as being an unwitting and innocent tool of the homosexual propaganda machine. This, I see as sad. Perhaps I am reading WAY too much into this, not sure.

Again, not trying to be a jerk...maybe being one comes naturally to me..maybe i am too cynical...perhaps I should view this with more charity, but it's how I see it.

[IcePrincessKRS]

[quote name='Lil Red' timestamp='1293607635' post='2194888']
no one has a 'right' to a child. this is what happens when you introduce contraception into society. people think that they can decide best for themselves when a child is appropriate in their lives, thus relegating a child to be seen not as a gift, but a right. it's just another celebrity trend of single women, and gays, and single men, having a child without a spouse and a stable home to raise children in. (and of course, we don't want any 'sticky' problems by adopting a handicapped child, or an older child, so we must create a new child).

the problem didn't start with teh gayz. it started with the introduction of contraception, and was spurred on by no-fault divorce.

(sorry if my logic isn't clear, it's 12:30 a.m. and my brain is firing on short circuits.)
[/quote]

I agree. We are very much an "I want and I want it now" society, and we don't like anything barring our way.

[quote name='Dscherck' timestamp='1293585620' post='2194847']
One thing that I've found from being a father for all of two years is how much it changes you for the better. While obviously we can disagree on his views regarding homosexuality and many other subjects, I think rather we should pray that the Lord will use the bond between him and the baby to help him change his life for the better. Perhaps this child will one day help Elton John come to know the Lord.
[/quote]

I agree with this, too.


[quote name='MIkolbe' timestamp='1293626267' post='2194900']
Perhaps I am too cynical in my old age, but I agree (in a way), with what St. Michael is saying. First, where I do not agree...
1) I do not see the child as a pet. I agree, that is just wrong.
2) I do not think they are incapable of loving a child.

But, how I do agree (at least in the 'gist' of how I read St. Michael) is that this adoption reeks, to me, of a publicity stunt. 'You must not only accept me, you must celebrate me (and my chosen lifestyle).' I see this child being a litmus test/ and/or proof (as he grows up) of how normal and wonderful homosexuality is. I see this being purposefully 'put' on this child by Mr. John and whomever the other guy is. This is where I see St. Michael's pet comment being more accurate. I just see this child as being an unwitting and innocent tool of the homosexual propaganda machine. This, I see as sad. Perhaps I am reading WAY too much into this, not sure.

Again, not trying to be a jerk...maybe being one comes naturally to me..maybe i am too cynical...perhaps I should view this with more charity, but it's how I see it.
[/quote]

I can see how this is entirely possible. I remember when there was some hooplah about Rosie O'Donnell adopting children, but you don't hear much about that at all anymore. I think they like to make a big deal about it when a gay public figure "marries" or adopts because it does further their agenda, but once the novelty wears off the drop that celebrity for the next one in line. I'm not saying this is true of the "average" homosexual person (I've known those who are not pushy and "in your face" about it, they knew I didn't agree but they didn't try and push me to agreement, either), but more typical of the loud activists.

[Socrates]

I'm sick of homosexuals adopting kids to justify their sodomitic lifestyle.

There's no good reason for homosexuals to adopt. There are plenty of straight married couples who are happy to adopt.
The line about how countless kids will die in the gutters unless we have homosexual adoption is bullocks.

[Semper Catholic]

Yeah Elton John has a new CD out, he's a fledgling musician so obviously anything he can do to get into the news is a publicity stunt.

[rhetoricfemme]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1293658678' post='2194977']
There's no good reason for homosexuals to adopt. There are plenty of straight married couples who are happy to adopt.
[/quote]
Then why are there still kids waiting to be adopted?

[Lil Red]

[quote name='rhetoricfemme' timestamp='1293664686' post='2195005']
Then why are there still kids waiting to be adopted?
[/quote]
from what i've heard (granted, i haven't researched) U.S. adoption laws were changed in the 60s (70s?) and they are more restrictive. i don't really know though.

[CatherineM]

I know we were turned down for adoption of a child. I figured it was a long shot with my husband's illness, but that wasn't the issue. They didn't think we had enough space or enough money. We have twice the space, and 4 times the money my parents raised half a dozen with, but it isn't considered good enough today. This would be a mansion in NYC or Tokyo, but not here.

[rachael]

[quote name='CatherineM' timestamp='1293668579' post='2195035']
I know we were turned down for adoption of a child. I figured it was a long shot with my husband's illness, but that wasn't the issue. They didn't think we had enough space or enough money. We have twice the space, and 4 times the money my parents raised half a dozen with, but it isn't considered good enough today. This would be a mansion in NYC or Tokyo, but not here.
[/quote]
I'm sorry to hear that.

Another reason that a lot of children don't get adopted here is because many people want to adopt younger children. This is why people will go to great lengths such as travel internationally (i.e. China are great examples), to find a younger child. Adoption are not cheap, that's for sure, and many people cannot afford the costs of said adoption. The red tape involved with adoption turns many people away. On the other hand, getting pregnant? It can take just two people. People also want to bear their own offspring, and - as we know - will go to great medical lengths to achieve success in doing so.

[Ice_nine]

[quote name='Lil Red' timestamp='1293607635' post='2194888']
no one has a 'right' to a child. this is what happens when you introduce contraception into society. people think that they can decide best for themselves when a child is appropriate in their lives, thus relegating a child to be seen not as a gift, but a right. it's just another celebrity trend of single women, and gays, and single men, having a child without a spouse and a stable home to raise children in. (and of course, we don't want any 'sticky' problems by adopting a handicapped child, or an older child, so we must create a new child).

the problem didn't start with teh gayz. it started with the introduction of contraception, and was spurred on by no-fault divorce.

(sorry if my logic isn't clear, it's 12:30 a.m. and my brain is firing on short circuits.)
[/quote]

Mayb you're paraphrasing a lot, but it makes much sense to me. Although I'm gonna contend that it "started" with lust, objectification, and pornography depending on how far back you wanna go.

But I'm just gonna go on a tangent. Say I'm a 30-something, single, living either alone or with a roommate or whatever and there was a child in need that for some reason I could take in and care for and there was no better living arrangement to be made, shouldn't I take the child in? I know this is a rather odd and unlikely scenario but I just mean to illustrate that [i]just[/i] because a child isn't born into the ideal loving mother and father situation, doesn't mean the child is gonna be messed up for life and doesn't mean that the child cannot get the nurturing and love he or she needs.

Well I guess most of you understand that. I just hope the child grows up and knows he is loved by other members of the human family, and most importantly loved by the Creator Himself. A lot of kids growing up in "Christian" homes don't really know this, and I imagine the kids of secular homes generally don't either. the culture of death so present in the modern Western world that it makes me cringe to think of the little ones (hell, even people my age and older) no matter what type of strange families they find themselves in. But I won't lose hope whether a child is raised by gays straights witchdoctors or neo-nazis.

I haven't slept in about 36 hours so . . . as far a s making sense goes don't hold me to much

[Ed Normile]

I do feel sorry for the child. I was blessed with both a father and a mother, a young male learns much about the way he will eventually treat women from his interaction with his mother. I do not know how, or even if, it will be possible to raise a child with two fathers who are homosexual men. The child would have no real exposure to the normal heterosexual lifestyle. By the way what happened to the children that Mr. John had with his nanny? What will happen to this child when the likely breakup between Mr. John and his dear hubby occurs, afterall homosexual relationships are usually very unstable.

ed