That Elton and David should not have had a baby

[pigletmania]

I dont know how true this is, but if it is I totally disagree with them having a baby. The whole point of having a baby is because you want to have children and want to be near them, and be involved with them. When I had my dd I just wanted her near me, and could not stop looking at her. Looks like this poor baby is just a fashion accessory, going to be raised by nannies whilst they go out and party and enjoy celebrity life. Totally wrong, just goes to show what flashing a bit of cash can do.

www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1343395/Elton-Johns-new-baby-door-1-3m-luxury-flat.html

I've read about lots of couples having one or two full-time nannies to take care of their children while they work abroad/on film sets etc. and nobody bats an eyelid! I think they are being scrutinised because they are gay.

I don't know Elton John (wish I was on the part invite list!) but based on what I have read I think his child will be loved and adored and will want for nothing. That's not bad going in my book.

party - not part

No not necessarily, AMIS the DM highlights non gay celebrities ways of raising children that are a bit I guess if I posted about them in AIBU i would not get flamed. I put this on here because i was a bit about them having a separate flat for their baby not because they were gay, if it had been Madonna, or Danni Minogue, or Coleen or whoever i would still be a bit and posted on here about it.

Take Michael Jackson for example, its only now that his kids are having somewhat a normal life, before they were very sheltered, had to wear veils and had new toys everyday, their air was climate controlled. When you are famous your family life becomes public and open to critism.

Well, the Daily Mail can be pretty awful about all sorts of people, so I don't think it's just about them being gay. But I think there is an element of that in the story. I'm not saying that's why you posted about them, just that it's part of why a paper like the Daily Mail would run this article and pitch it in this way - it comes across as "Gay rich people spend a fortune on interior designer for fashion accessory baby" rather than saying anything about their actual plans for raising a happy healthy child.

My husband didn't get up ONCE in the night, he did 1 pooey nappy and was useless at feeding her and at bedtime. Wish he was gay & rich though...

They are basically a tabloid newspaper dedicated to highlighting and criticsing celebrities, you would find much the same in the Express, The Sun, Mirror etc, and not in the Times or Telegraph.

Well nor did mine QOD thats why I am there, but if needs be he would. Oh i hate it when people play the gay card when that is not the intention, more to do with money and wealth and buying you what you want when you want.

But I really DO wish my dh was gay and rich.......

I agree piglet - corse the baby is an accessory - he was born on christmas day

Since that is what they spend their time doing, perhaps you need to look a little deeper into the stories they print to see how much is actually based on evidence, and how much is their own interpretation. Most of that story is catty comments from unnamed sources, and a long description of how surrogacy agencies can let you pick out the characteristics you want in a baby. There is nothing which says they did pick characteristics, or that they don't intend to knock through between the two apartments.

You seem happy to say they shouldn't have a baby if this story is true, but what makes you think it is true? thy are careful not to say anything libellous, ut they manage to ive an impression of the couple which is based on nothing concrete whatsoever.

How many more people will be assuming this is true "because its in the newspaper"?

The same goes with Madonna and they underhanded way in which she adopted those children, and now they are being looked after by mostly nannies, but I guess i would get less of a flaming on here about it because she is straight so can be open to critisism.

I did say that if this article is true meaning it might not be who knows.

all celebs are prob the same

"Looks like this poor baby is just a fashion accessory, going to be raised by nannies whilst they go out and party and enjoy celebrity life. Totally wrong, just goes to show what flashing a bit of cash can do."

So - you're totally open-minded about whether this story is true, are you?

I said it looks like not that it is!

All you are saying is "If this unsubstantiated tabloid piece which contains no evidence at all is true, they are terrible" The piece doesn't even claim to know if its true or not, just makes nasty insinuations. Why do you even give this type of journalism enough of your attention to think it might be true?

Whilst your 'thoughtful' musings are 'interesting' I'm not sure a wealthy millionaire who will give his child everything it needs will care. Is it not better to have parents who both love and can afford a child rather than one who subscribes to the it takes a village rubbish?