OMG!!!!!! James Whale just made an ASS of himself Sky news

[whifflegarden]

Is anyone watching paper review on Sky news? James Whale = Twat
Ranting about "Lesbian parents are not equal to a man and wman"...."I always thought the benefit of being gay was not having children"..."you've got to have a man and woman to make a child"
Eamon Holme's face was like this

Many men opt not to be registered on the birth certificate.

who the fuck is james whale?

I agree with James Whale ( call me names, that's what you do best, I really do not care ). That's what I think and am certainly not alone. Millions of people all over the world hold this opinion and they are perfectly entitled to it. Deal with it.

Caramel, you're perfectly entitled to your opinion. but why do you hold it? I'm genuinely interested.

For the record, I wasn't shocked by his views....I was shocked by his ignorance. It's fine to hold views, even distasteful ones...but I believe you should be able to defend them logically and with reason. Not hold them just because. we're not animals, we have the power to reason, so let's use it.

I know close to nothing about the issue of gay parenting except that my former boss and her partner had 2 dcs and she was (still is) someone I hold in the highest regard. Beyond that, is it doing anyone any harm = no. So live and let live.

My other question - does this mean that other "formats" of heterosexual couples will be able to register partners who aren't biological on the birth cert.

James Whale for example is a twat. Always was! Didn't know he was still in circulation.

When I gave birth to the boys, no-one in the hospital asked me whether the eggs were mine and the sperm dh's. Had we used donor eggs and sperm it would still be both of our names on the birth cert.

Seems wrong to demand this info from gay couples, IMO.

But supposing I had used a donor egg. There is no legal obligation on me to tell my child where that egg came from or whose it was. And no obligation to put the donor's name on the birth cert. So if dh and I are not legally obliged to divulge this, neither should a gay couple be. The same laws need to apply to everyone.
As Lenin said, the only difference with a gay couple is that it is blindingly obvious that an egg/sperm had to have come from elsewhere.
If donors need to be named or recorded, then that law should also apply to straight couples. And there is no need for it to be recorded on the birth cert itself, which, IMO should only be for the people who intend to raise that child.

I think this really highlights the fact that birth certificates can't make up their mind what job they are trying to do.

Are they are purely biological record, in which case only biological information would be recorded. And in which case you would have to decide whether to make it obligatory to divulge what information you know about biological parentage.

Or it's a social document. A record of who will parent the child. In which case I don't see why a gay couple shouldn't be named as parents.

I think, when they were introduced, these were (give or take) the same thing. A child's biological parent(s) or extended family raised the child. Doesn't cut it in the modern world.

But a lot of the time they weren't even a correct biological record. If Mummy had had a bit of action with the milkman, then they were simply a record of who raised the child.

Well, true. But at least the dad thought he was the Dad!