Perez Hilton and baby pictures - awful

124

Comments

  • Rowan HedgeRowan Hedge Posts: 3,861
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    downtonfan wrote: »
    http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/03/21/article-0-18D61D50000005DC-196_634x429.jpg

    This is just one of them. Every pic is that odious creature posing like this making the picture all about him and dressing the kid up in ridiculous outfits. No daddy-baby bond screams out at you but boy with his new toy.

    So thats Paris Hiltons kid then
  • lyndalahugheslyndalahughes Posts: 270
    Forum Member
    Being gay is perfectly natural, I agree...but also homosexuality and procreating poses an obvious catch-22. Unless a gay man is happy to sleep with a woman. When gay men say they have the 'right' to be parents you have to remind them that, while yes they might - to an extent - but they can only be parents if a woman is willing to give her baby away to them. Their 'right' is solely dependent on women agreeing to carry their sperm. Until men start growing wombs that is..;)

    The surrogate is most often a womb to rent, she's impregnated with a fertilized egg (or two as in the couple I know), it's not her egg.

    It is wonderful that there are women out there who want to give the gift of life to gay couples. I do think adoption should be promoted more though.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 2,177
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I just despair at you. Parenting isn't defined by gender. Think about children who's mothers die in child birth, mothers that can't cope and give up responsibility to the fathers. Children raised by their god parents, extended family, before we even get on to same sex relationships. Being a parent is the lessons you teach your child, how it's raised, who's there for it, who loves it. Not the gender of that person.

    Being a mother isn't just about being female. Imagine it's possible to go back in time...How many people would put themselves up for this if they could? Who would give concent to being taken from their mother as a newborn and given to Perez H?
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 502
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Fizgig wrote: »
    Being a mother isn't just about being female. Imagine it's possible to go back in time...How many people would put themselves up for this if they could? Who would give concent to being taken from their mother as a newborn and given to Perez H?

    Ask his child in 15-20 years time? He's probably gonna be very happy with his dad.
  • user1234567user1234567 Posts: 12,378
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Fizgig wrote: »
    Being a mother isn't just about being female. Imagine it's possible to go back in time...How many people would put themselves up for this if they could? Who would give concent to being taken from their mother as a newborn and given to Perez H?
    The children of Rosemary West? A bit of an extreme example but foster care is full of children from abusive mothers. When it works, the relationship between a mother and her child is very special but I don't buy into the BS that only mothers can love their children/know what's best for them etc. Plenty of people aren't raised by their biological mother and they turn out fine.
  • viertevierte Posts: 4,286
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I just despair at you. Parenting isn't defined by gender. Think about children who's mothers die in child birth, mothers that can't cope and give up responsibility to the fathers. Children raised by their god parents, extended family, before we even get on to same sex relationships. Being a parent is the lessons you teach your child, how it's raised, who's there for it, who loves it. Not the gender of that person.

    Totally agree. This thread is disturbing, I'm seriously shocked at some of the attitudes people in here have. Having a mother isn't the be all and end all, lots of children have mothers and they have actually made their lives worse and are rubbish parents. Being a good parent and bringing up a child to be loved and well looked after has nothing to do with bring male or female, you get bad parents of both genders.
  • DynopiaDynopia Posts: 1,645
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Apart from Fizpig and Downton this thread has actually surprised me for the better. I think most are against this because Perez is a tool and shouldn't be a father (feel for the kid)

    coming from a gay guy :)
    The children of Rosemary West? A bit of an extreme example but foster care is full of children from abusive mothers. When it works, the relationship between a mother and her child is very special but I don't buy into the BS that only mothers can love their children/know what's best for them etc. Plenty of people aren't raised by their biological mother and they turn out fine.

    Indeed. How many mothers die from childbirth again? Do all those children end up f***ed up? I don't think so.

    Just pure ignorance, no actual argument so they pick whatever they can from thin air.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 2,177
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Dynopia wrote: »
    Apart from Fizpig and Downton this thread has actually surprised me for the better. I think most are against this because Perez is a tool and shouldn't be a father (feel for the kid)

    coming from a gay guy :)



    Indeed. How many mothers die from childbirth again? Do all those children end up f***ed up? I don't think so.

    Just pure ignorance, no actual argument so they pick whatever they can from thin air.

    When you have to resort to insults you've already lost.

    What a crock bringing Rose West in to justify a childish/selfish man buying a baby for his own wants.

    I asked if anyone would swap their mother for PH. You seem to have taken offence at that. Would you?
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 2,177
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Maybe he'll do a good job of it. Maybe the kid will never miss what it hasn't had. I just think it's a shame if they never get to know their mother (even if the intent was never for her to be there). The children should be put first is all I'm saying.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 3,538
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I just despair at you. Parenting isn't defined by gender.

    If that was the case, a baby would grow inside a man. Don't try and be politically correct, it doesn't suit you. I despair at that.:rolleyes:

    Climb down off your high horse and face the harsh reality. A newborn baby aches for the mother. End of :)
  • lexi22lexi22 Posts: 16,394
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Dynopia wrote: »
    Apart from Fizpig and Downton this thread has actually surprised me for the better. I think most are against this because Perez is a tool and shouldn't be a father (feel for the kid)

    coming from a gay guy :)

    Indeed. How many mothers die from childbirth again? Do all those children end up f***ed up? I don't think so.

    Just pure ignorance, no actual argument so they pick whatever they can from thin air.

    Yes, that has much to do it because he's a deeply unpleasant prat. But to use him as an argument against surrogacy and the ability of gay men to provide children with all the love and care they need is quite pathetic.

    Anyway, who knows, maybe a baby will humble Hilton and turn him into a better person...
  • Saltydog1955Saltydog1955 Posts: 4,134
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    downtonfan wrote: »
    A newborn baby aches for the mother. End of :)

    A newborn baby aches for cuddles, closeness and warmth, it doesn't matter what gender gives them to him or her, as they have no knowledge of it.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 502
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    A newborn baby aches for cuddles, closeness and warmth, it doesn't matter what gender gives them to him or her, as they have no knowledge of it.

    I concur. 100% thank god for some sense in a very bigoted and narrow minded thread.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 502
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    downtonfan wrote: »
    If that was the case, a baby would grow inside a man. Don't try and be politically correct, it doesn't suit you. I despair at that.:rolleyes:

    Climb down off your high horse and face the harsh reality. A newborn baby aches for the mother. End of :)

    I like the way you ignored all of the reasons a child has no birth mother involvement in their lives...but ends up completely fine.

    Having an opinion that encourages love and equality for all, isn't political correctness. It's equality for all. I'll stand by it until the day I die.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 813
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I concur. 100% thank god for some sense in a very bigoted and narrow minded thread.

    I have to admit I am a but shocked by some of the attitudes I've read in this thread. You feel society moves forwards so to read things like this is a tad upsetting.

    Anyway I find Perez Hilton utterly loathsome, however babies have the ability to bring out the best in people, so I wish him all the best. Lets hope being a father gives him a different perspective on things and he matures passed poking fun of infants and drawing hilarious penises on pictures.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 813
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Fizgig wrote: »
    Maybe he'll do a good job of it. Maybe the kid will never miss what it hasn't had. I just think it's a shame if they never get to know their mother (even if the intent was never for her to be there). The children should be put first is all I'm saying.

    How do you know the child isn't being put first? I don't know the man personally but how do you know the baby isn't being loved and cared for?

    We have seen many women utterly screw up their children and fail at being a parent, if having a mother is all that is required for a baby to grown up to be balanced and content how come so many individuals descend into the abyss? All a child needs is love, good role models, food in its belly and a roof over its head, the gender of however is providing that is a mute point.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 2,177
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    How do you know the child isn't being put first? I don't know the man personally but how do you know the baby isn't being loved and cared for?

    We have seen many women utterly screw up their children and fail at being a parent, if having a mother is all that is required for a baby to grown up to be balanced and content how come so many individuals descend into the abyss? All a child needs is love, good role models, food in its belly and a roof over its head, the gender of however is providing that is a mute point.

    Keep demonising women all you want. The wants of the person buying the baby are 1st. Anyone with money can get one.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 813
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Fizgig wrote: »
    Keep demonising women all you want. The wants of the person buying the baby are 1st. Anyone with money can get one.

    How on earth am I demonising women? :confused:And I despise this term 'buying a baby', yes gay people cannot go through the traditional route of creating life, but that does not mean the motives for having children are not honourable. So simply because they cannot have children biologically they are simply buying children as accessories due to narcissism and vanity? :confused::confused: That is backwards
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 2,177
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    How on earth am I demonising women? :confused:And I despise this term 'buying a baby', yes gay people cannot go through the traditional route of creating life, but that does not mean the motives for having children are not honourable. So simply because they cannot have children biologically they are simply buying children as accessories due to narcissism and vanity? :confused::confused: That is backwards

    Where did I say anything about narcissism and vanity?
    People are demonising women on the thread, not neccessarily you, although you did say "
    We have seen many women utterly screw up their children and fail at being a parent"
    I said it isn't putting the baby first, allowing anyone who can afford one to get one, needing no emotional involvement whatsoever, just cash. It's my opinion. No need to agree if you don't want to.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 813
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Fizgig wrote: »
    Where did I say anything about narcissism and vanity?
    People are demonising women on the thread, not neccessarily you, although you did say "
    We have seen many women utterly screw up their children and fail at being a parent"
    I said it isn't putting the baby first, allowing anyone who can afford one to get one, needing no emotional involvement whatsoever, just cash. It's my opinion. No need to agree if you don't want to.

    You said children should be put first, so the idea of gay men having their own kids means they are putting their needs above anyone else's. So they have children purely for egotistical reasons?

    I am not demonising women, I'm just saying that a child can have a mother in its life and be utterly screwed up. Women do not always make the best parents.

    How can we judge those simply because they went through a non traditional way of having a child? How can you say they don't have emotional investment?
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 2,177
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    You said children should be put first, so the idea of gay men having their own kids means they are putting their needs above anyone else's. So they have children purely for egotistical reasons?

    I am not demonising women, I'm just saying that a child can have a mother in its life and be utterly screwed up. Women do not always make the best parents.

    How can we judge those simply because they went through a non traditional way of having a child? How can you say they don't have emotional investment?

    Are you deliberately misunderstanding me? I didn't say 'they don't have emotional investment'. I said, it would be possible for someone to have no emotional investment and for it to be like a purchase. And I don't know where I mentioned gay men either? I did mention a baby being taken from it's mother and left without one. And gave the opinion that doing that isn't really thinking of the baby first. It's thinking of the person who wants the baby.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 813
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Fizgig wrote: »
    Are you deliberately misunderstanding me? I didn't say 'they don't have emotional investment'. I said, it would be possible for someone to have no emotional investment and for it to be like a purchase. And I don't know where I mentioned gay men either? I did mention a baby being taken from it's mother and left without one. And gave the opinion that doing that isn't really thinking of the baby first. It's thinking of the person who wants the baby.

    I am not deliberately misunderstanding you I just like you are being very narrow minded.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 2,177
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I am not deliberately misunderstanding you I just like you are being very narrow minded.

    Am I? How so?
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 11,471
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Fizgig wrote: »
    Am I? How so?

    Babies come into this world for all sorts of reasons and all sorts of circumstances, who are we to judge? its what happens afterwards that truly matters.
  • user1234567user1234567 Posts: 12,378
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Fizgig wrote: »
    Where did I say anything about narcissism and vanity?
    People are demonising women on the thread, not neccessarily you, although you did say "
    We have seen many women utterly screw up their children and fail at being a parent"
    I said it isn't putting the baby first, allowing anyone who can afford one to get one, needing no emotional involvement whatsoever, just cash. It's my opinion. No need to agree if you don't want to.
    Women aren't being demonised on this thread. It's simply being pointed out that giving birth doesn't automatically make someone a good mother and some children who are raised by mothers don't turn into well adjusted adults.
Sign In or Register to comment.