Tom Daley & DLB Baby Backlash

[topdog]

On Valentines Day I posted news about Tom Daley and Dustin Lance Black having a baby on the way over in the Celebrity News section. It seemed like just a bit of happy news for the celebrity couple.

Now it's a news story because the backlash from two men becoming parents has been swift and very public - particularly in the Daily Mail which dedicated a whole column in disgust at what they call an LGBT publicity stunt.

Daily Mail columnist Richard Littlejohn said:

“Despite the fact that countless single parents do a fantastic job, I still cling to the belief that children benefit most from being brought up by a man and a woman.

“Which is precisely what worries me most about the Daley publicity stunt. Here we have two men drawing attention to the fact that ‘they’ are having a baby.

“But where’s the mum, the possessor of the womb which features in this photograph? She appears to have been written out of the script entirely.”

He then went on to say that the thought of Tom and Dustin becoming parents made him sick, and demands to know which one is the father and the name of the surrogate mother.

Somehow, for me personally after what has seemed like ten years of court cases about same-sex marriage where opponents tried and failed over and over to come up with data that shows a child needs opposite sex parents, I kind of thought that this issue was settled. Children do best with two loving, stable parents. The gender of the parents doesn't make much difference.

Yet, here we are. Oh, and the comments are even worse, including death threats.

 

[brmstn69]

The most recent comments I read were all in support of Tom and Dustin...

 

[W!nston]

You can't legislate opinions on homosexuality or same-sex marriage or any other hot-button topic.

The media is so biased for and against anything and everything why should Gay marriage be any different?

I agree the main ingredient in a good home for children is a stable, loving relationship between the parental partners. But I also agree that two males cannot reproduce biologically themselves. A female is required. We cannot pretend otherwise and create confusion among children. That is the issue here. Two men cannot reproduce.

I was born to heterosexual parents. They were together 53 years during which they struggled to make ends meet well enough to raise 6 children. It wasn't easy for them. They deserve credit for my existence. Both of them equally made me possible.

Let's not pretend Tom & Dustin created a baby. There was a woman involved unless there is some science I'm not familiar with. The hoopla over them "having a baby on the way" is another example of exploitation of some as yet unborn child for profit by the propagandized media.

Do you believe the day will come when science makes it possible for ... no. That will never happen.

 

[topdog]

You can't legislate opinions on homosexuality or same-sex marriage or any other hot-button topic.

Ain't that the truth! No amount of studies will budge deeply held beliefs.

...Let's not pretend Tom & Dustin created a baby. There was a woman involved unless there is some science I'm not familiar with...

No one is saying otherwise. It's an instagram selfie of a couple holding up a sonogram. Not a press release. Not an interview. There are no details. No one is saying that they mysteriously conceived this fetus themselves. How did that become the topic of conversation?

 

[W!nston]

I think Gay couples can make good parents. But they can also be not-so-good parents the same as Str8 couples.

The sonogram is great. I wish them the best.

The editorial in the OP was in the Daily Mail according the that post. The column mentions 2 dads being the new normal. That is what I was referring to.

It is a for profit business. I think they are exploiting that unborn child. It's disgraceful to me.

 

[slimjim]

Well the Daily Mail is and always has been a vile, hate-fuelled right-wing rag and Littlejohn a prime example of it's stance - not the only one, other contributors have similar inflammatory views - but we in the UK stand up for free speech and all that. Happily there has been a better response from several major UK companies who have cancelled their advertising contracts with this ghastly rag - not that it will make any difference to their collective views sadly but it is a nice and encouraging gesture

 

[topdog]

...It is a for profit business. I think they are exploiting that unborn child. It's disgraceful to me.

I was with you right up until the last line, then I got lost. What is the for-profit business that is exploiting the Daley-Black baby?

 

[gorgik9]

W!nston said: "You can't legislate opinions on homosexuality or same-sex marriage or any other hot-button topic."

Excuse me my friend, but I think you're un-usually fluffy and fuzzy in your writing tonight. WTF do you mean by "can't legislate opinions" ? That's quite obvious; of course legislation can't produce unanimous opinions on ANYTHING. Which doesn't mean you can't legislate: how many laws have been passed in parliament with a 51% majority? Quite a few. And how many laws have been passed with 100% majority behind them? Very very very few - that doesn't really matter.

And without legislation, how can there be ANY kind of modern marriage, since marriage - same-sex, other-sex, polygamous, whatever - is a legal institution. You can't just SAY "oh, we're married" and be married, you'll have to register your marriage with due procedure - otherwise you're just blabbering.

And though the US of A behaved like Johnny-Come-Lately in the question of same-sex marriage (compared to a number of countries, including my native Sweden) the USSC did decide on a federal same-sex marriage right in 2015. (In the decision in "Obergefell v. Hodges").

W!nston also wrote in another post:
"Let's not pretend Tom & Dustin created a baby. There was a woman involved unless there is some science I'm not familiar with. The hoopla over them "having a baby on the way" is another example of exploitation of some as yet unborn child for profit by the propagandized media."

Why do you imply that Tom and Dustin are stupid as fuck? Or are you implying that I'm stupid? Or both? Or what? The ones creating "the hoopla" was - in my opinion - the Daily Mail and its columnist Richard LittlePrick trying their best to do homophobic shit on T & D. The other "hoopla" is in my opinion two young fathers-to-be being extremely happy about the near future & using social media to communicate their happiness - and WTF is wrong about that???

There was "a woman involved". that is: another woman involved, in thousands upon thousands of stories about certified heterosexual couples who just can't produce babies on their own, either because their - the man, the woman or both - reproductive health is weak, or because their biological heredity is seriously problematic as when their common offspring risks being hit by very grave hereditary diseases. I would fully understand if parents with the knowledge of the possibility of their offspring getting - say - Tay-Sachs disease would refrain from traditional babymaking (a.k.a. hetero fucking) and think about other options like adoption, egg donation, sperm donation, in vitro fertilization, artificial insemination etc.

These kinds of decisions are made by the thousands every fuckin' day all over the world and all of these options presupposes - one way or another - getting another woman involved. And if you're OK with heterocouples using these possibilities, I just can't fathom why you like to do dirt on Tom & Dustin.

In a Gay Porn Forum!!! For fucks sake!!!

 

[gorgik9]

Well the Daily Mail is and always has been a vile, hate-fuelled right-wing rag and Littlejohn a prime example of it's stance - not the only one, other contributors have similar inflammatory views - but we in the UK stand up for free speech and all that. Happily there has been a better response from several major UK companies who have cancelled their advertising contracts with this ghastly rag - not that it will make any difference to their collective views sadly but it is a nice and encouraging gesture

I'm totally with slimjim on this; we've obviously read the same ugly Daily Mail text & I've decided to baptize the Daily Mail columnist mr LittlePrick.

He fuckin' begged for some bashing :angry:

 

[W!nston]

Well, I wasn't throwing dirt on Tom & Dustin. I was stating the obvious. They are not 'having a baby'. A woman who was impregnated by one of them is having a baby.

I said Gay couples are equally capable of being good parents as Str8 couples. Some might be bad but most will be good.

But Gay couples cannot 'have a baby' in the traditional sense. That's all I was trying to say. I'm not against them or Gay parents at all.

Str8 couples who use a surrogate are not having a baby either. They are using their sperm or ovum or both to impregnate another female. That is not the traditional 'having a baby' event either.

There's nothing wrong with either of those scenarios. It happens every day. But neither is 'having a baby' together in any traditional sense.

Maybe my opinion is a minority of one among my peers but there it is. Maybe I'm extremely old-fashioned. Maybe my opinion is based on a life time of conditioning by a culture that everyone on earth - except me - wants to bury in the past. That's fine too. I'm just speaking my mind. If that's a cultural no-no then society can rest in peace knowing me and those like me have more yesterdays than tomorrows.

I'm not attacking anyone on this forum. I'm not looking for a fight. I didn't mean to bring the proverbial house down on my head. So I'll steer clear of this discussion and apologize for offering my opinion to begin with.

:big hug:

 

[jeansGuyOZ]

This is what I don't like about this forum. When someone takes the trouble to make a long well thought out post addressing many aspects of a topic, too often people don't bother to read and understand, they just pick up on some phrase that catches their eye because it touches some kind of nerve, and proceed to unleash a bitter response. I've had this myself, and now I see the same thing happening with Winston's post.

Read his post again, carefully. All Winston did was state the obvious. Two men can't "have a baby". They can raise a child, and can probably do perfectly well, but they cannot "have a baby", it's a biological fact.

Geez.

 

[Shelter]

This is what I don't like about this forum. When someone takes the trouble to make a long well thought out post addressing many aspects of a topic, too often people don't bother to read and understand, they just pick up on some phrase that catches their eye because it touches some kind of nerve, and proceed to unleash a bitter response. I've had this myself, and now I see the same thing happening with Winston's post.

Read his post again, carefully. All Winston did was state the obvious. Two men can't "have a baby". They can raise a child, and can probably do perfectly well, but they cannot "have a baby", it's a biological fact.

Geez.

Thank you JeansGuyOZ for these resolving words - because it is my honest opinion that W!nston will be the last one in this forum who will speak against any gay person.

 

[Stonecold]

jeansGuyOZ

This is what I don't like about this forum. When someone takes the trouble to make a long well thought out post addressing many aspects of a topic, too often people don't bother to read and understand, they just pick up on some phrase that catches their eye because it touches some kind of nerve, and proceed to unleash a bitter response. I've had this myself, and now I see the same thing happening with Winston's post.

You have a right to your say on subjects I agree 100 percent, but others have just as much right to disagree with your views. I as a Gay parent found why some people took offense in what was stated. Two Gay people can have a baby, a child. I would agree if it was stated they were creating a baby. Have and create are two different things. I think it is news worthy that they are having a baby. I think it says a lot about them as people. They are willing to give of themselves in time, money, and love.
I don't think for one minute W1nston meant it as a put-down but especially to younger people, I can see why it could be taken that way.
I have never seen a straight couple that are having a baby by means other than traditional not say they are having a baby and I have never seen them attacked for saying they are having a baby. Maybe it is just regional use of words that is different. Where I live or in my life circle having a baby means getting a baby period.

 

[gorgik9]

jeansGuyOZ

You have a right to your say on subjects I agree 100 percent, but others have just as much right to disagree with your views. I as a Gay parent found why some people took offense in what was stated. Two Gay people can have a baby, a child. I would agree if it was stated they were creating a baby. Have and create are two different things. I think it is news worthy that they are having a baby. I think it says a lot about them as people. They are willing to give of themselves in time, money, and love.
I don't think for one minute W1nston meant it as a put-down but especially to younger people, I can see why it could be taken that way.
I have never seen a straight couple that are having a baby by means other than traditional not say they are having a baby and I have never seen them attacked for saying they are having a baby. Maybe it is just regional use of words that is different. Where I live or in my life circle having a baby means getting a baby period.

I fully agree with stonecold, hitting the nub of the matter better than myself in my own long post above: There are lots of straight couples - every day of the year, all over the world - having babies by other means than straight fucking, and - just like stonecold - I've never ever ever heard, that a couple adopting a child or using in vitro fertilization or artificial insemination have had to put up with the comments, that they're "not having a baby".

Now I know, that W!nston isn't a malevolent person, I know that - we've been friends for many years - but on the other hand: there is no such thing as a private language, and if you engage in a conventional language game you have no right to pretend that it doesn't mean what it is conventionally taken to mean.

"We're having a baby" isn't a statement on the biological causes for the child; it's a very conventional phrase that could be re-phrased: "We're going to become parents, soon!"

 

[brmstn69]

Given advancements in science and medicine, I have little doubt that within the next decade or two it will be possible for two biological males to conceive a child.
It could be done by using hormones to convert a sperm cell or stem cell into an egg, or infusing a stem cell with chromosomes from two men. Gestation could be done with an artificial womb.

 

[Stonecold]

I agree, I think also cloning in the future will be available. China just this year has successfully cloned monkeys and since they don't have religious objections to cloning I would not be surprised for human cloning to be done soon. I am sure we are decades away in the US, but it is possible the scientists at the Chinese Academy of Sciences in Shanghai, will work out the ethical problems with human cloning.

 

[mikk33]

Daley-Black have confirmed that they are having a child with a woman friend who is carrying the fertilised egg and will be the mother. The two fathers will bring up the child as their own.
The issue for me is the homophobic rant by the 'daily-hate-mail', so called journalist who has along history of attacking gay couples and transgender people. Due to the online backlash against the homophobic rant saying that two dads are 'not normal', the #stopfundinghate campaign got results.
Several advertisers withdrew funding from the comic and there is now no advertising alongside his moronic rants. The newspaper industry is losing paper sales every day and going online, so stopping advertising revenue is a big commercial hit, money talks to these papers. The daily-hate-mail supported fascism in the 1930's and has not stopped attacking the diversity in our culture.
Daley-Black both lost their fathers at a young age so want to have children and I would say. semantics aside, good luck to them.

 

[bellsy1946]

No-one in their right mind takes anything the Daily Mail says seriously. This is a paper that supported Hitler, employs Littlejohn to say what the Tory right-wingers want to hear, and used to employ Katie Hopkins.

 

[Stonecold]

I got to try and remember the Daily Mail is like our Briebart here in the states.

 

[hammervice]

wow i didnt see any thing about this thanks for sharing