Rupert Everett: 'There's nothing worse than gay parents'

[Corduroy]

Is that the cleverest question you could come up with?
It doesn't display very much depth in thought.

As I said to WLDB; I had a mother and a father. They were people; two different people to be exact. As such, they were two different role models.They each had their own views. I experienced those of their views they were willing to divulge to me and developed a few of my own views.
Is that different from anyone else that had two parents (same gender or not)? I kinda doubt it.

Gender differences are only a small part of what make people up. I see people in more ways than just gender difference.

Looks to me that you're saying two same-sex parents are just as good. Is that right?

 

[L Gilbert]

Unfortunately, biology and the rights of the child run counter to the ideals of homosexual couples.

Baloney. What are the ideals of homosexual couples? Just sex and thumbing noses at the "traditional" idea of couples? Nah, I think most people in a relationship that want kids want to have a loving life with them regardless of gender differences, just like most other couples.

Before I explain what I mean, for the record, I support adoption for same-sex couples and I also don't believe that anyone technically has any natural right to know who their parents are.

So you don't think adopted kids have the right to know if their biological donors have any medical issues that may affect their biological offspring? Odd.

It's a good idea, but not a necessary right like say free speech.

Yeah, free speech rights rule over those to know about congenital diseases et al.

Anyway, in the past, part of the operating ideology behind adoption and sperm/egg donations has been to take great pains to conceal the identities of biological parents or donors. There's a long standing assumption in our culture that implies there is something shameful about adoption. I'm not sure how well it reflects actual social behaviour, but there is at the very least the meme of parents hiding adoption from their children and the horror of revealing it to them.

Stigma being what it is.

Attitudes have changed over time. Our government has made it easier for children and biological parents to find each other. Children believe they have a right to know who their parents are, and some are even looking for their sperm donors. When it comes to these things, we often forget that there are real human beings brought into this kind of contract without their consent, and when they grow they have questions and reasonable demands.

Unfortunately for same-sex couples, we still can't produce children without a male and female, so no matter how you do it (adoption, donors) you're going to bring third parties into the equation. The ethical questions involved are the same ones posed opposite-sex couples adopting, using donors etc.

Agreed.

Looks to me that you're saying two same-sex parents are just as good. Is that right?

I'm not saying they are in all cases, but they can just as well be as good.

Jeeezez, China. It'd sure help if you'd learn how to use the quote function properly. It isn't brain surgery.

 

[Corduroy]

Baloney. What are the ideals of homosexual couples? Just sex and thumbing noses at the "traditional" idea of couples? Nah, I think most people in a relationship that want kids want to have a loving life with them regardless of gender differences, just like most other couples.

That's what I mean. They want a family just like opposite-sex couples. The problem is that there is a level insularity in the idea of the family, and when it comes to adoption or donors there are contributors to the family who are essentially hidden. So as I say, biology and the rights of the child make the ideal impossible. Of course, plenty of couples have no problem including donors, surrogates or biological parents into their lives, and obviously you can have a family without biological connections. The real problem is keeping a child's origins from them.

So you don't think adopted kids have the right to know if their biological donors have any medical issues that may affect their biological offspring? Odd.

That's right.

I'm not saying they are in all cases, but they can just as well be as good.

Oh good. So you aren't answering my question. We actually agree.

 

[L Gilbert]

That's what I mean. They want a family just like opposite-sex couples. The problem is that there is a level insularity in the idea of the family, and when it comes to adoption or donors there are contributors to the family who are essentially hidden. So as I say, biology and the rights of the child make the ideal impossible. Of course, plenty of couples have no problem including donors, surrogates or biological parents into their lives, and obviously you can have a family without biological connections. The real problem is keeping a child's origins from them.

I don't see the problem. If the kid asks, they should be told or at least given the health/genetic info of their parents.

That's right.

You wouldn't want to know if your bio donors had any genetic disorders, diseases, etc. so you could better prepare to ward them off in the future? And you don't think anyone else has the right to know anything regarding their future health? Like I said; odd.

Oh good. So you aren't answering my question.

I missed one?

We actually agree.

If you think we agree, then you must have understoof my replies to your questions.

 

[Corduroy]

You wouldn't want to know if your bio donors had any genetic disorders, diseases, etc. so you could better prepare to ward them off in the future? And you don't think anyone else has the right to know anything regarding their future health? Like I said; odd.

I certainly didn't say that.

This is what I said.

So you don't think adopted kids have the right to know if their biological donors have any medical issues that may affect their biological offspring?

That's right.

 

[L Gilbert]

I certainly didn't say that.

This is what I said.

So make up your mind. Either adopted kids should have the right to know certain things about their parents or not. If you don't think they should have those rights, then I will keeping saying "that's odd".

 

[Corduroy]

So make up your mind. Either adopted kids should have the right to know certain things about their parents or not. If you don't think they should have those rights, then I will keeping saying "that's odd".

I said children should not have the right to know their biological parents and disease history.

You asked me "you wouldn't want to know if your bio donors had any genetic disorders, diseases, etc. so you could better prepare to ward them off in the future? And you don't think anyone else has the right to know anything regarding their future health?"

Those are different questions. Since you can't tell the difference let me sum it up for you.

1. Child's right to know about their biological parents and genetic disease history.
2. Me wanting to know about my parents' genetic history
3. The right to know anything about one's future health

There's a difference between the right to know your parents genetic history and wanting to know it. There's also a difference between knowing your parents genetic history and knowing anything about your future health.

 

[L Gilbert]

I said children should not have the right to know their biological parents and disease history.

You asked me "you wouldn't want to know if your bio donors had any genetic disorders, diseases, etc. so you could better prepare to ward them off in the future? And you don't think anyone else has the right to know anything regarding their future health?"

Those are different questions. Since you can't tell the difference let me sum it up for you.

1. Child's right to know about their biological parents and genetic disease history.
2. Me wanting to know about my parents' genetic history
3. The right to know anything about one's future health

There's a difference between the right to know your parents genetic history and wanting to know it. There's also a difference between knowing your parents genetic history and knowing anything about your future health.

Irrelevant semantics. They all boil down to the same concept. I think adopted kids have the right to know pertinent data about their parents and apparently you don't.

 

[taxslave]

Irrelevant semantics. They all boil down to the same concept. I think adopted kids have the right to know pertinent data about their parents and apparently you don't.

If you are talking about donor sperm/egg I would agree with you. If you are talking about a baby being put up for adoption then I am not so sure unless this information can be passed on without identifying the biological parents.

 

[Corduroy]

Irrelevant semantics. They all boil down to the same concept. I think adopted kids have the right to know pertinent data about their parents and apparently you don't.

There's a difference between wanting something and having the right to something. It's not irrelevant semantics. In fact, it's pretty much the point. I might want Mitt Romney's summer home, but do I have the right to Mitt Romney's summer home? If we were debating this right and I said "no one should have the right to someone else's home" and someone replied "what you don't want Mitt Romney's summer home?" would the semantic difference between to two be irrelevant? I think any intelligent person would realize that they are not at all the same and in fact the response completely missed the point. Unfortunately, this is exactly the same logic you used in your reply to me and then dismissed as irrelevant semantics.

 

[relic]

Degenerated into stupid.
MY opinion is,Whereever an adopted child comes from,be it a test tube or a broken home,any pertenant medical information that may have a bearing on the childs future should bemade available to the adopting parents.
If at some point the child wants to know more about where they really came from,why the hell not,I think that it would be cruel not to.
The s e x ual orientation of the adopting couple should make not a lick of difference,it's too bad that natural parents don't have to prove they are capable of properly raising a child.{some people shouldn't have a fn hamster}
Thank you for your attention.