Reader comments · Former Tory leader attacks lesbian parents · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Former Tory leader attacks lesbian parents

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Ha! At the first opportunity, the Nasty Party rears it’s disgusting head. Will flippy-floppy Cameron take a stand against the foul IDS? No, of course not, he won’t do anything to upset the blue rinse Daily Mail brigade and the rest of his evil party.

  2. Ryan Haynes 19 Nov 2007, 2:12pm

    I fully support IDS and will continue to. IVF should not exist, it is wrong. If gay people were meant to have kids then we would have the biological facilities to do so.If we want to look at religion, then God created us all differently some can have kids, some can’t, some are gay some aren’t. So let’s live with it.There’s too many kids who need a home without creating more through IVF.The basics of it is that people only exist from a male and female – without which life is non-existent.

  3. Sister Mary Clarence 19 Nov 2007, 2:21pm

    Yes IDS, who was ousted as leader as it was felt he did not well represent the views and direction of the Conservative Party, will stand shoulder to should with the 45 Labour MPs who have signed a motion saying the bill is “profoundly misinformed and clearly undermine the best interests of the child.”As has been mentioned before a few old Tory has-beens still have a problem with equality and this is undoubtedly part of the reason they are now has-beens. Perhaps if they were a little more able to move with the times, they wouldn’t be quite so has been.

  4. Naomi is quite right. Duncan-Smith is a revolting, bigoted, ignorant, little man. I am sorry to see that Ryan is one of those suffering from mental illness – religious faith being a mental illness

  5. Ryan Haynes 19 Nov 2007, 3:10pm

    I’m far from religious, but I will hold this opinion. IVF is vile and should not be accepted – those begging for it are obviously unfulfilled and need a child to fill that space.Those who support IVF have been brainwashed by a thing called – Political Correctness – Bloody madness!

  6. IDS – Don’t underestimate the silent Nazi.This isn’t about IVF, this is another Tory excuse to gay bash.He’s pure evil.I wonder if the tiny minority of Tories who are “gay friendly” will stand up for us? I doubt it.Come on Cameron, stand up to him. You wouldn’t dare.

  7. Sister Mary Clarence 19 Nov 2007, 5:04pm

    Suz – prejudice is borne out of ignorance – yours and his. With comments like that, you are no better than he is.

  8. There’s a bit of a difference in being opposed to IVF and an ideology that murdered gays, Jews and anyone else they considered inferior.To shriek “Nazi” at any instance of homophobia is an insult to those who were murdered at the hands of the real Nazis.

  9. Robert, ex-pat Brit 19 Nov 2007, 7:39pm

    So Ryan, what do you say to the straight married woman whose husband is infertile? She’s supposed to forego ever having children even if it means she can from another donor with her husband’s consent?

  10. Robert, ex-pat Brit 19 Nov 2007, 7:41pm

    Suz, I’m with you. Lets see how gay friendly they are. If they are as they claim to be, then David Cameron should issue a statement in defence of lesbians having the same equality as heterosexual women. If he doesn’t, then we’ll know where they truly stand.

  11. so it’s OK for a lesbian to have kids if she’s “knocked up”, is it Ryan?

  12. Ryan Haynes:: the car manuals were great, but don’t let it go to your head. You have a nice, simple, childish view of reality which you call religion. Do you live in a cave? Do you refuse to seek medical assistance when ill? Do you abstain from using your heating in the cold winter months? Never drive only walk?Or is it quite alright for you to defy God’s great plan, while others must meekly submit to the whims of nature?

  13. Robert, ex-pat Brit 19 Nov 2007, 9:25pm

    Naomi, I’m holding my breath. I’d be more than surprised if Cameron took any stand against IDS. I hope he does, but my gut feeling says, NOT! Its politics as usual, expediency takes precedence even if it means we’re the sacrifical lambs. Always been that way, always will be. We’ve always been the last group in the pecking order of things, nothing new there.

  14. “IVF is vile and should not be accepted”Since when is using medical science to help those have the child they want be called “vile”?I a bionic limb for a person who lost their arm also vile? Is curing leukaemia with bone marrow from another donor vile?What’s vile is seeing 24 year old unemployed women in council estates with 5 kids all from different fathers and can barely spell their names on the dole slip… are these people more entitled to reproduce because the use “natural” methods than someone using IVF? Are reading glasses natural,for that matter? The the digital watch on your wrist, is that “natural”?Perhaps, Ryan, you shouldn’t be so quick to judge what medical science people are entitled to use based on your view on what, in your narrow view, is “natural”.To call IVF “political correctness” is demeaning and insulting, and very very small minded.

  15. Robert, ex-pat Brit 20 Nov 2007, 2:44am

    William, it comes down to “homophobia”, loud and clear. There is no other explanation. If they find IVF so offensive, then they must also support the abolition of stem cell research that has the potential for ridding the world of cancer, AIDS, multiple sclerosis, alzheimers, pneumo-cystic fibrosis, spasticism, parkinson’s, hodgkins lymphoma, Lou-Gherig’s disease, all fatal diseases that could benefit from IV genetics. I despair.

  16. Ryan Haynes 20 Nov 2007, 8:35am

    I believe if you can’t have kids naturally, you can’t have kids. But it doesn’t stop you raising them.Perhaps we will see one day people consider adoption before fertilisation!

  17. “Perhaps we will see one day people consider adoption before fertilisation!”Adoption is always an option for parents who cannot have their own child, but its not necessarily for everyone. People have the right to chose. Just because you cannot have children naturally, that doesn’t mean its a closed case and adoption is the only option.If you contract cancer, and cannot cure it by yourself “naturally”, would you be so quick to turn down a medical treatment, just because it wasn’t “natural”?

  18. Can someone ban this so called “Kate Mos” and her stupid advertising?

  19. Robert, I believe this is more then homophobia, its “selective science”. Ryan is on of these people who feels its okay to enjoy the many benefits that science and technology provide him with, but is quick to judge what science another can or cannot use as a “moral judgement”.They will also accept the science that makes their lives easier, like trust the time of their digital wrist watch, without needing or wanting to know how an oscillating quartz crystal works to tell them that time in the first place. They just accept it. But they’ll happily pick and choose what science they will “accept” or believe should be refused to others, again with no real understanding of what they’re talking about.It is simply a form of ignorance, not homophobia.

  20. Robert, ex-pat Brit 20 Nov 2007, 1:16pm

    Ryan, the point is, lesbians can have children, naturally, its only the method of conception that is different, equally applicable to straight women whose husbands can’t impregnate them for medical reasons or conditions. I’m sure the majority of women would rather give birth to their own children than adopt, and in many cases, go out of their way to make sure they can conceive in some form or other, but adoption is a perfectly acceptable option too. It comes down to choice, women have the right to choose since it is they who carry a child to term, not men. Why should you be concerned by which methods a woman conceives?If men could have babies, they might change there opininons, drastically.

  21. Robert, ex-pat Brit 20 Nov 2007, 1:24pm

    William, you’re probably right about that. These right wing socalled christians do exactly the same with their belief systems. They deliberately cherry pick what few references there are to denigrate us and deny us our rights, but they’ll go out of their way to dismiss anything that puts them in a bad light. Its nothing more than organised hypocrisy and bigotry, let alone ignorance.They’ll probably all opposed to stem cell research, the future of medicine and science. They’d rather allow people to not seek cures for terminal illnesses because the methods used to fight them would probably involve invitro methods too. They need to get back to the caves from whence they came.

  22. Ryan Haynes 20 Nov 2007, 2:36pm

    I appreciate your comments, it’s healthy to have this discussion I guess it’s just a factor of “it’s just not for me”. I would never encourage anyone to go for IVF, and have occassionally advised my friends I am not the person to speak to about such subject.This is a personal belief – perhaps because I will never have a child of my own. Perhaps it is because I am part of the minority – I was born out of love and experienced the love that my parents have together for the whole of my life. And, too – have I seen my fathers parents raise him in love together and for him.I too see my pathetic teenage cousins as mothers on benefits. Who am I to judge – just view the world in through my eyes.

  23. Robert, ex-pat Brit 20 Nov 2007, 3:22pm

    Ryan, so what about a widowed parent? Are their children any less loved? What do you say to them? Do you condemn them for only having one parent? What about divorced couples and their children? What about the wife beaters, women who are forced to flee to a shelter with their children? I would rather a lesbian or any woman for that matter bring a child into the world via IVF knowing the child is wanted and will be loved unconditionally, live in a stable loving home and offered a future, unlike some of the straight breeders who breed for he sake of it and drag their children up to be tomorrow’s gay bashers.

  24. Robert, ex-pat Brit 20 Nov 2007, 4:25pm

    William, am enclosing a link to Wayne Besen’s other website, “Truth Wins Out” which combats ex-gay ministries and other right wing religious bigots. He’s doing some very impotant, marvellous work in defeating them. Check it out

  25. Ryan Haynes 21 Nov 2007, 7:51am

    It’s disappointing for you all to think me a bigot. Far, Far from it.I guess either I am unable to communicate my thoughts, my opinions are not worthy because I do not share yours or that I have lived a very closed life…

  26. William - Dublin 21 Nov 2007, 12:00pm

    Ryan, I do no think you’re a bigot. I do however, think you are choosing what science to “believe” in and that others should be allowed access to. Science is not a religion. The proof is there, in clear, unambiguous black and white, for those who choose to understand it. The bible on the other had, is a smorgasbord of contradictions that you can pick and mix like cheap confectionery to suit your taste. Science can only be argued with by proof.Saying something wrong because its not “natural” is pretty damn stupid, when you consider in our world very little is truly “natural”.No, you’re not a bigot, Ryan, but you are in dire need of some education and a less judgemental, more empathic, approach to other people. And you’ll be happier for it too.

  27. Whilst I don’t agree with Ryan, I have sympathy towards his point of view. I think that whilst IVF and other fertilisation treatments are available to straight couples they should also be available to gay couples. I do however, wish that most couples would consider adoption as there are thousands of children in the UK who need a good home.

  28. I fully support a lot of what Ryan says. Although I am an atheist, with a rather anti-religious standpoint, I still think gay people expect to be treated totally as equals when the biology and physiology says otherwise. Next thing we will have queens mincing about screaming “I can have a womb if I want one!!” Gay people may be normal, but are not the “norm”.Get over it and stop demanding what you consider to be a “right”.There are plenty of kids that need parents, I see no reason why more have to be made just to suit the whims of selfish people. At the end of the day, nobody has a right to have children. The only rights are for the child itself, and that he or she can be brought up in a loving, caring, well-balanced and financially supportive environment.If that cannot be provided, then gay or straight, you shouldn’t be allowed to bring a child into the world.

  29. Robert, ex-pat Brit 21 Nov 2007, 1:30pm

    Rob, having said what you said that biologically gay men can’t have children and that gay people should not be treated as equals to straights, then obviously you do NOT believe in equality. IVF enables gay men to have children via surrogate mothers, simple as that, the same as infertile fathers can have a male donor’s sperm to impregnate his wife via IVF, simple as that. So you’re also implying that if a married women has no other option than IVF to bare her own child rather than adopt, and it’s her choice, then her husband isn’t equal either, based on the fact that he can’t produce fertile sperm sufficient enough to fertilize an ovum?

  30. Sister Mary Clarence 21 Nov 2007, 2:23pm

    Robert, having read you posting twice I am at a loss to understand who you drew the conclusions you did from Rob’s posting.There is a perfectly legitimate view being expressed on her that IVF is wrong and that childless couples (whether gay or straight) might be better off adopting a child with no parents.I don’t think this has got anything to do with equality or inequality, or whether someone is bigoted or not. It is simply a point of view.

  31. Ryan Haynes 21 Nov 2007, 2:35pm

    Rob you expressed exactly what I have been trying to communicate – obviously much more succinctly -thank you for joining this discussion.Rights – human rights – Our human rights are to eat, drink, sleep, love, be loved, excrete and communicate. [FULL STOP]No-one has a right to torture us, put us down, make us feel more worthy, make everything acceptable in a public space, nor make us the’same’.To be equal is to be heard, to be understood, to be involved – not to have like everyone else.If we are to submit ourselves to ideology then yes – lets go for IVF and be ‘normal’. After all ‘normal’ is family and kids – as says the Bible – it maybe back to religion but – If I am to understand anything that has been said here, on equality and what been want as equal citizens is purely social engineering…conditioning us that to be equal is to be normal – 2.4!

  32. Robert: I am wondering if anyone told you about the birds and the bees. Contrary to much opinion, babies are not delivered by a stork.It requires a fertile man, and a fertile woman.Whether the conception is done by IVF, turkey baster or the traditional method that apparently many heterosexuals adopt, there needs to be both sexes present at some point in the proceedings.Two men having a child is not physically possible. Or two women.That is what I meant by “unequal”.I’m sure many gay people would like to eliminate the opposite sex entirely, but I am afraid until then, we still need both.

  33. Robert, ex-pat Brit 21 Nov 2007, 8:19pm

    Rob, I’m fully aware of how life begins in the womb thank you very much and I don’t need a lecture from you on the reproductive system either. What you are missing is that when you rail against IVF, you did not address the situation with married women whose husbands are infertile. You imply that IVF should never be an option. So that means that any married woman in your eyes whose husband can’t impregnate her, should not be allowed to receive sperm from a male donor. Any married woman in that situation should have the right to choose, either IVF because her husband can’t get her pregnant, or a donor who can. As for two men having children, I never said they could. All I meant was that a gay male couple can have children via a surrogate mother using IVF. What part of my posting did you not understand?

  34. Robert: I think you have also misinterpreted my comments. IVF has been an option for a lot of people for a long time, but nonetheless, there are alternatives. My best friend and his wife have been trying for children for many years, and failing. This can cause immense strain on a relationship, as the maternal drive can have huge effects on women. IVF is one (expensive) option, others include adoption or fostering.Unfortunately, in today’s society, the concept of a married couple not having children is seen as at best, rather sad, at worst abnormal. Peer pressure demands families. How many gay men have summoned up the courage to come out to their parents, only for them to say “Oh, so we won’t be having Grandchildren then?”Based on this, the homosexual society has jumped on the baby bandwagon in their attempt to be “normalised” and become equal, by using what was designed as a help for semi-infertile married couples conceive to being a way of “Daddy and Daddy” having a baby. I think it a gross abuse of so called “human rights” to demand that they can also have babies on tap. Gay men and lesbians lead an alternative lifestyle, admittedly not one of their choosing, but nevertheless, that’s the way the die has been cast. Live with it. Either that, or go str8. You cant have your cake and eat it.

  35. Ryan Haynes 21 Nov 2007, 10:32pm

    I fully support what Rob says and the conversation I initiated from the start. We can’t have ‘out cake and eat it’.Children is a thing that ‘happens’. It should not be made, and I mean in this no religious connotations. For children of 13 can become pregnant after only once having sex and a couple can work at it for years and never conceive.This in itself should be enough not to pressurise people into having children, but for us as a society to educate those who are not secure enough (financially and mentally) to have children, and by this I do mean teenagers in fragile relationships.Until a child is seen as our existance for the future, for passing on the lessons taught to us, and a being we can nuture for love – children will continue to be used as a commodity for expressing equality, normality or achieving financial support.Do we need examples in which to express this? Or should we just look on our streets everyday to see the results that treatment (like IVF) and benefits (from social security) has given us?! A reckless soicety after recognition and affirmation – not for development and community…

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.