HE is a busy man he hasnt got 24/7 to look after a baby.
Most people, myself included, are busy people who don't have 24/7 to look after babies which is why mOst of is have help in the shape of partners, parents or professionals to help. I'm pretty sure he's considered his diary before he and David became parents.
How do you know? A sizeable group of my colleagues have nannies and they are not rich. All are excellent mothers. The nastiness in this thread is disgusting.
I was not referring to the fact that EJ is rich. Can you in all honesty really see Elton John getting his hands dirty and changing a dirty nappy. Well I certainly cannot. To me it is like all these celebrity couples they can buy what they want. EJ & DF just want a baby to add to their other trophies in the cabinet and will not be getting involved in all the messy bits that having a baby entails. I was not being nasty I was just giving my personal thoughts on the matter. Anyway why are you so upset by the comments on here do you know him personally? It is a discussion forum and people are entitled to give their opinions as the last time I looked we have free speech in this country
Most people, myself included, are busy people who don't have 24/7 to look after babies which is why mOst of is have help in the shape of partners, parents or professionals to help. I'm pretty sure he's considered his diary before he and David became parents.
I have 5 children and im only 30 somthing,
elton isnt a spring chicken and hasnt he got a dicky heart,I realy do hope it works out for all of them,i have not got anything against them at all,
I just think money talks and i know 2 couples who would love a child but it will never happen for them.
Someone interviewed on the news yesterday said, that all children needed a mother or lost out. Really? What if the mother was like Rose West or that dreadful woman who faked her daughters abduction? My father died when I was a baby I was brought up by a loving single mum and that's what is important: Loving and caring parent/ parents of whatever sex
For me, there is no problem with their sexuality. Their ages however are a different matter. This will probably be a child growing up and loving it's nanny more than anyone else.
I was not referring to the fact that EJ is rich. Can you in all honesty really see Elton John getting his hands dirty and changing a dirty nappy. Well I certainly cannot. To me it is like all these celebrity couples they can buy what they want. EJ & DF just want a baby to add to their other trophies in the cabinet and will not be getting involved in all the messy bits that having a baby entails. I was not being nasty I was just giving my personal thoughts on the matter. Anyway why are you so upset by the comments on here do you know him personally? It is a discussion forum and people are entitled to give their opinions as the last time I looked we have free speech in this country
Did I stop you from giving your opinion? I can be upset about anything I like and as I have a gay sibling who is also a parent, I take some of these disgusting and homophobic attitudes expressed in this thread personally.
I don't know him personally and neither do you, yet you seem to know exactly why he and his partner decided to have this child and how it will be brought up. I don't claim to have such knowledge-- are you privvy to it?
If Elton John got everything he wished for, then how come he wasn't able to adopt the Ukraninan baby?
Your post is riddled with ignorance and bile. Thankfully, this is a country with free speech and I am more than entitled to say so, IMO of course.
Did I stop you from giving your opinion? I can be upset about anything I like and as I have a gay sibling who is also a parent, I take some of these disgusting and homophobic attitudes expressed in this thread personally.
I don't know him personally and neither do you, yet you seem to know exactly why he and his partner decided to have this child and how it will be brought up. I don't claim to have such knowledge-- are you privvy to it?
If Elton John got everything he wished for, then how come he wasn't able to adopt the Ukraninan baby?
Your post is riddled with ignorance and bile. Thankfully, this is a country with free speech and I am more than entitled to say so, IMO of course.
Becuase the Ukranian Child was NOT for sale?
Dont forget this is the guy that also married on Valentines Day to a Woman (Renate) and thought that was perfect (probably she thought was for life), to then decide probably not afterall and dumped her. So being that that was not for him, went on to meet David and with all the money in the world he still clearly is not happy about it and decideds possibly he could buy a baby? Hang on a minute here is one in the Ukrane I will have that one, thankfully they have a fair few more morals than EJ does and refused him. Being that he did not get his own way then he decides not to try in the UK as thats illegal to buy and any other way probably too long so goes to the USA and does the deed.
Nothing at all to do with anything about his sexuality its about EJ just buying what he wants and doing what he wants because he can, and that for me really is not right
EJ & DF just want a baby to add to their other trophies in the cabinet and will not be getting involved in all the messy bits that having a baby entails.
Where is your evidence for this? All just assumption based on nothing other than your opinion on two people you know nothing about.
Had you read or seen any of EJs interviews over the past year or so, you would know that both he and DF have been wanting to have a baby for quite some time, EJ in particular saying that he put it off for a long time as he felt it wouldn't be fair on any child to be part of their life when it involved so much touring and travelling etc. He and DF, had theywanted a baby as - in your words - a trophy - could have had one at any point over the past decade and just passed it on to nannies to be cared for. Instead, they did what intelligent mature people do, they waited until a time when they both felt that they were in the right place to give a home to a child. They planned it. They prepared for it. IMO, they couldn't have been more serious and committed in the way they went about this. And for all those reasons, I believe they will both be very loving hands-on parents. It doesn't mean they won't have nannies or family/friends helping - this baby will be surrounded by love and that's all that matters.
Did I stop you from giving your opinion? I can be upset about anything I like and as I have a gay sibling who is also a parent, I take some of these disgusting and homophobic attitudes expressed in this thread personally.
I don't know him personally and neither do you, yet you seem to know exactly why he and his partner decided to have this child and how it will be brought up. I don't claim to have such knowledge-- are you privvy to it?
If Elton John got everything he wished for, then how come he wasn't able to adopt the Ukraninan baby?
Your post is riddled with ignorance and bile. Thankfully, this is a country with free speech and I am more than entitled to say so, IMO of course.
Why on earth do you take every negative comment about this arrangement as motivated by homophobia?
I wholly support equality for gay couples in adopting children but this couple have bought a baby which is an entirely different proposition. You think that is ok ( an arguable opinion) but insist on calling everyone who has a contrary view bigoted or homophobic which is insulting and, in many cases, inaccurate. Sexual orientation is nothing to do with this issue which is about wealthy people, of whichever gender and orientation, putting their needs before the welfare of other people.
Where is your evidence for this? All just assumption based on nothing other than your opinion on two people you know nothing about.
Had you read or seen any of EJs interviews over the past year or so, you would know that both he and DF have been wanting to have a baby for quite some time, EJ in particular saying that he put it off for a long time as he felt it wouldn't be fair on any child to be part of their life when it involved so much touring and travelling etc. He and DF, had theywanted a baby as - in your words - a trophy - could have had one at any point over the past decade and just passed it on to nannies to be cared for. Instead, they did what intelligent mature people do, they waited until a time when they both felt that they were in the right place to give a home to a child. They planned it. They prepared for it.
I have read those interviews highlighting how Elton felt his touring schedule would be incompatible with a child's welfare. It is therefore reasonable to ask why he is embarking on his next world tour (accompanied as usual by David) next month at the same time as taking on this infant.
Dont forget this is the guy that also married on Valentines Day to a Woman (Renate) and thought that was perfect (probably she thought was for life), to then decide probably not afterall and dumped her. So being that that was not for him, went on to meet David and with all the money in the world he still clearly is not happy about it and decideds possibly he could buy a baby? Hang on a minute here is one in the Ukrane I will have that one, thankfully they have a fair few more morals than EJ does and refused him. Being that he did not get his own way then he decides not to try in the UK as thats illegal to buy and any other way probably too long so goes to the USA and does the deed.
Nothing at all to do with anything about his sexuality its about EJ just buying what he wants and doing what he wants because he can, and that for me really is not right
why is the marriage relevant at all? lots of people think they are getting married for life then get divorced its hardly unique
I have read those interviews highlighting how Elton felt his touring schedule would be incompatible with a child's welfare. It is therefore reasonable to ask why he is embarking on his next world tour (accompanied as usual by David) next month at the same time as taking on this infant.
It's a major tour, probably planned well in advance. And Elton is still hugely in demand as a performer. I think I read somewhere that EJ is planning on retiring from touring after this (or was it on the Piers Morgan show he mentioned it?)
Anyhoo, not being privvy to their baby-care arrangements (unlike other people here who seem to know all about the inner workings of the John-Furnish household) , I have no idea how they plan to manage touring and fatherhood but I'm sure Zach will feature high in their plans. David is not performing, EJ has multitudes of people around him to manage his schedule, I'm sure they'll figure it all out to everyone's satisfaction...
Not being homophobic, but I think that Elton John is too old. I know that young people get sick and die too or get killed in accidents, but surely the older you are the more chance you have of not making it to see your child grow up?
How old will he be when the baby is in secondary school?
It's a major tour, probably planned well in advance. And Elton is still hugely in demand as a performer. I think I read somewhere that EJ is planning on retiring from touring after this (or was it on the Piers Morgan show he mentioned it?)
Anyhoo, not being privvy to their baby-care arrangements (unlike other people here who seem to know all about the inner workings of the John-Furnish household) , I have no idea how they plan to manage touring and fatherhood but I'm sure Zach will feature high in their plans. David is not performing, EJ has multitudes of people around him to manage his schedule, I'm sure they'll figure it all out to everyone's satisfaction...
He did say when he and David were trying to adopt the Ukrainian child that he had stopped touring and therefore now was the time to adopt. Obviously that was a short-lived plan as he is now touring again. The point is you yourself have posted how Elton's expressed view that it would be unfair for them to have a child while he was still touring is evidence of their selfless planning. I am simply pointing out that whatever he has said he is still touring. And either the baby goes with, from pillar to post, whether attended by a fleet of nannies or not or stays home for 6 months while one (and on past touring arrangements both) daddies are absent.
Dont forget this is the guy that also married on Valentines Day to a Woman (Renate) and thought that was perfect (probably she thought was for life), to then decide probably not afterall and dumped her. So being that that was not for him, went on to meet David and with all the money in the world he still clearly is not happy about it and decideds possibly he could buy a baby? Hang on a minute here is one in the Ukrane I will have that one, thankfully they have a fair few more morals than EJ does and refused him. Being that he did not get his own way then he decides not to try in the UK as thats illegal to buy and any other way probably too long so goes to the USA and does the deed.
Nothing at all to do with anything about his sexuality its about EJ just buying what he wants and doing what he wants because he can, and that for me really is not right
What a load of nonsense. Should he have stayed in a relationship with a woman out of obligation? He realised he was gay, should not have gotten married, and yes, people got hurt, but that's life. You talk as if he set out to deliberately hurt her. He plainly to this day feels very bad about it and regrets the hurt he caused her.
As for the rest of it, all fails on the logic front. If it's all about petulance and 'I want, I get', then why didn't he just have a child on a whim years ago? He's been with DF for what? 17 years? At any point over that time, he could have had a baby if he'd wanted one. But he didn't, for good and practical reasons. He waited until the time was right. That to me suggests the polar opposite of petulance and selfishness.
PS. Again, wrong, on the Ukranian child: EJ was too old, 45 is the upper age limit in the Ukraine, and his civil partnership was not recognised there. Had he been younger and in a heterosexual relationship, he could have adopted the child.
He did say when he and David were trying to adopt the Ukrainian child that he had stopped touring and therefore now was the time to adopt. Obviously that was a short-lived plan as he is now touring again. The point is you yourself have posted how Elton's expressed view that it would be unfair for them to have a child while he was still touring is evidence of their selfless planning. I am simply pointing out that whatever he has said he is still touring. And either the baby goes with, from pillar to post, whether attended by a fleet of nannies or not or stays home for 6 months while one (and on past touring arrangements both) daddies are absent.
Yes, agree, it does seem an odd time for him to embark on a world tour but - like I said, these things are planned sometimes years in advance. But as I've also said, while I have no idea what his and DF's babycare plans are, they knew the child was due so I'm sure they have a plan that involves him. Lots of people travel with babies, and with the facilities at their disposal, I'm sure they'll work it all out. Guess we'll just have to wait and see and not go too mad on the speculation... particularly when it's hardly a matter of public concern.
What a load of nonsense. Should he have stayed in a relationship with a woman out of obligation? He realised he was gay, should not have gotten married, and yes, people got hurt, but that's life. You talk as if he set out to deliberately hurt her. He plainly to this day feels very bad about it and regrets the hurt he caused her.
As for the rest of it, all fails on the logic front. If it's all about petulance and 'I want, I get', then why didn't he just have a child on a whim years ago? He's been with DF for what? 17 years? At any point over that time, he could have had a baby if he'd wanted one. But he didn't, for good and practical reasons. He waited until the time was right. That to me suggests the polar opposite of petulance and selfishness.
PS. Again, wrong, on the Ukranian child: EJ was too old, 45 is the upper age limit in the Ukraine, and his civil partnership was not recognised there. Had he been younger and in a heterosexual relationship, he could have adopted the child.
Again this is nothing to do with his sexuality, its about his selfishness, jeeze cant you read!
Again this is nothing to do with his sexuality, its about his selfishness, jeeze cant you read!
You seem to be the one with the reading comprehension prob.
Other than correcting your statement about why he couldn't adopt this Ukranian child - which I see you've ignored - I mention nothing about his sexuality other than where relevant (his marriage.) My post is entirely counter arguments to yours about his so-called selfishness.
Ah well, I'll just have to assume that you have no ammunition left - not that you had any to begin with.
You seem to be the one with the reading comprehension prob.
Other than correcting your statement about why he couldn't adopt this Ukranian child - which I see you've ignored - I mention nothing about his sexuality. My post is entirely counter arguments to yours about his so-called selfishness.
Ah well, I'll just have to assume that you have no ammunition left - not that you had any to begin with.
Actually, all Muddipaws said was that the Ukrainian baby was not for sale - which is correct. He could only be adopted and, as you rightly point out, Elton did not meet the criteria for adoption in that jurisdiction. You are talking at cross purposes. The point is Elton is allowed to buy a baby in a jurisdiction like California where the only criteria is how much can you pay.
Actually, all Muddipaws said was that the Ukrainian baby was not for sale - which is correct. He could only be adopted and, as you rightly point out, Elton did not meet the criteria for adoption in that jurisdiction. You are talking at cross purposes. The point is Elton is allowed to buy a baby in a jurisdiction like California where the only criteria is how much can you pay.
The point for YOU may be that. It's not for me as I don't see anything wrong with women making a decision to have a child on behalf of someone who can't. They went through a legal organisation and presumably fulfilled all the criteria required. You may see it as morally wrong, I don't.
The point for YOU may be that. It's not for me as I don't see anything wrong with women making a decision to have a child on behalf of someone who can't. They went through a legal organisation and presumably fulfilled all the criteria required. You may see it as morally wrong, I don't.
That's absolutely fine and this board is all about debating different viewpoints. Just don't accuse others of lack of comprehension or reading skills when they don't agree with YOUR viewpoint and express perfectly valid views of their own!;):cool:
A lot of people are too quick to hold up the homophobic card when that is not the issue here.
I know a kid who is being raised by his dad and uncle (brothers). He is definitely missing the woman's influence at home & the softness a mother brings. A mother does have a valid job in bringing up children. Also, look at Michael Jackson. He got to buy some kids, he wasn't gay (as far as I know). Would MJ's kids have grown up ok without a mother?
That's absolutely fine and this board is all about debating different viewpoints. Just don't accuse others of lack of comprehension or reading skills when they don't agree with YOUR viewpoint and express perfectly valid views of their own!;):cool:
If I see lack of reading comprehension evidence relating to responses to my post/s, I will continue to point it out without permission from you or anyone else, thanks all the same.
Comments
Most people, myself included, are busy people who don't have 24/7 to look after babies which is why mOst of is have help in the shape of partners, parents or professionals to help. I'm pretty sure he's considered his diary before he and David became parents.
I was not referring to the fact that EJ is rich. Can you in all honesty really see Elton John getting his hands dirty and changing a dirty nappy. Well I certainly cannot. To me it is like all these celebrity couples they can buy what they want. EJ & DF just want a baby to add to their other trophies in the cabinet and will not be getting involved in all the messy bits that having a baby entails. I was not being nasty I was just giving my personal thoughts on the matter. Anyway why are you so upset by the comments on here do you know him personally? It is a discussion forum and people are entitled to give their opinions as the last time I looked we have free speech in this country
elton isnt a spring chicken and hasnt he got a dicky heart,I realy do hope it works out for all of them,i have not got anything against them at all,
I just think money talks and i know 2 couples who would love a child but it will never happen for them.
Did I stop you from giving your opinion? I can be upset about anything I like and as I have a gay sibling who is also a parent, I take some of these disgusting and homophobic attitudes expressed in this thread personally.
I don't know him personally and neither do you, yet you seem to know exactly why he and his partner decided to have this child and how it will be brought up. I don't claim to have such knowledge-- are you privvy to it?
If Elton John got everything he wished for, then how come he wasn't able to adopt the Ukraninan baby?
Your post is riddled with ignorance and bile. Thankfully, this is a country with free speech and I am more than entitled to say so, IMO of course.
Becuase the Ukranian Child was NOT for sale?
Dont forget this is the guy that also married on Valentines Day to a Woman (Renate) and thought that was perfect (probably she thought was for life), to then decide probably not afterall and dumped her. So being that that was not for him, went on to meet David and with all the money in the world he still clearly is not happy about it and decideds possibly he could buy a baby? Hang on a minute here is one in the Ukrane I will have that one, thankfully they have a fair few more morals than EJ does and refused him. Being that he did not get his own way then he decides not to try in the UK as thats illegal to buy and any other way probably too long so goes to the USA and does the deed.
Nothing at all to do with anything about his sexuality its about EJ just buying what he wants and doing what he wants because he can, and that for me really is not right
Where is your evidence for this? All just assumption based on nothing other than your opinion on two people you know nothing about.
Had you read or seen any of EJs interviews over the past year or so, you would know that both he and DF have been wanting to have a baby for quite some time, EJ in particular saying that he put it off for a long time as he felt it wouldn't be fair on any child to be part of their life when it involved so much touring and travelling etc. He and DF, had theywanted a baby as - in your words - a trophy - could have had one at any point over the past decade and just passed it on to nannies to be cared for. Instead, they did what intelligent mature people do, they waited until a time when they both felt that they were in the right place to give a home to a child. They planned it. They prepared for it. IMO, they couldn't have been more serious and committed in the way they went about this. And for all those reasons, I believe they will both be very loving hands-on parents. It doesn't mean they won't have nannies or family/friends helping - this baby will be surrounded by love and that's all that matters.
Why on earth do you take every negative comment about this arrangement as motivated by homophobia?
I wholly support equality for gay couples in adopting children but this couple have bought a baby which is an entirely different proposition. You think that is ok ( an arguable opinion) but insist on calling everyone who has a contrary view bigoted or homophobic which is insulting and, in many cases, inaccurate. Sexual orientation is nothing to do with this issue which is about wealthy people, of whichever gender and orientation, putting their needs before the welfare of other people.
I have read those interviews highlighting how Elton felt his touring schedule would be incompatible with a child's welfare. It is therefore reasonable to ask why he is embarking on his next world tour (accompanied as usual by David) next month at the same time as taking on this infant.
why is the marriage relevant at all? lots of people think they are getting married for life then get divorced its hardly unique
The point I am makng is he is entirely selfish and gets what he wants when he wants, petulance springs to mind
It's a major tour, probably planned well in advance. And Elton is still hugely in demand as a performer. I think I read somewhere that EJ is planning on retiring from touring after this (or was it on the Piers Morgan show he mentioned it?)
Anyhoo, not being privvy to their baby-care arrangements (unlike other people here who seem to know all about the inner workings of the John-Furnish household) , I have no idea how they plan to manage touring and fatherhood but I'm sure Zach will feature high in their plans. David is not performing, EJ has multitudes of people around him to manage his schedule, I'm sure they'll figure it all out to everyone's satisfaction...
How old will he be when the baby is in secondary school?
He did say when he and David were trying to adopt the Ukrainian child that he had stopped touring and therefore now was the time to adopt. Obviously that was a short-lived plan as he is now touring again. The point is you yourself have posted how Elton's expressed view that it would be unfair for them to have a child while he was still touring is evidence of their selfless planning. I am simply pointing out that whatever he has said he is still touring. And either the baby goes with, from pillar to post, whether attended by a fleet of nannies or not or stays home for 6 months while one (and on past touring arrangements both) daddies are absent.
What a load of nonsense. Should he have stayed in a relationship with a woman out of obligation? He realised he was gay, should not have gotten married, and yes, people got hurt, but that's life. You talk as if he set out to deliberately hurt her. He plainly to this day feels very bad about it and regrets the hurt he caused her.
As for the rest of it, all fails on the logic front. If it's all about petulance and 'I want, I get', then why didn't he just have a child on a whim years ago? He's been with DF for what? 17 years? At any point over that time, he could have had a baby if he'd wanted one. But he didn't, for good and practical reasons. He waited until the time was right. That to me suggests the polar opposite of petulance and selfishness.
PS. Again, wrong, on the Ukranian child: EJ was too old, 45 is the upper age limit in the Ukraine, and his civil partnership was not recognised there. Had he been younger and in a heterosexual relationship, he could have adopted the child.
Yes, agree, it does seem an odd time for him to embark on a world tour but - like I said, these things are planned sometimes years in advance. But as I've also said, while I have no idea what his and DF's babycare plans are, they knew the child was due so I'm sure they have a plan that involves him. Lots of people travel with babies, and with the facilities at their disposal, I'm sure they'll work it all out. Guess we'll just have to wait and see and not go too mad on the speculation... particularly when it's hardly a matter of public concern.
Again this is nothing to do with his sexuality, its about his selfishness, jeeze cant you read!
You seem to be the one with the reading comprehension prob.
Other than correcting your statement about why he couldn't adopt this Ukranian child - which I see you've ignored - I mention nothing about his sexuality other than where relevant (his marriage.) My post is entirely counter arguments to yours about his so-called selfishness.
Ah well, I'll just have to assume that you have no ammunition left - not that you had any to begin with.
Actually, all Muddipaws said was that the Ukrainian baby was not for sale - which is correct. He could only be adopted and, as you rightly point out, Elton did not meet the criteria for adoption in that jurisdiction. You are talking at cross purposes. The point is Elton is allowed to buy a baby in a jurisdiction like California where the only criteria is how much can you pay.
The point for YOU may be that. It's not for me as I don't see anything wrong with women making a decision to have a child on behalf of someone who can't. They went through a legal organisation and presumably fulfilled all the criteria required. You may see it as morally wrong, I don't.
That's absolutely fine and this board is all about debating different viewpoints. Just don't accuse others of lack of comprehension or reading skills when they don't agree with YOUR viewpoint and express perfectly valid views of their own!;):cool:
I know a kid who is being raised by his dad and uncle (brothers). He is definitely missing the woman's influence at home & the softness a mother brings. A mother does have a valid job in bringing up children. Also, look at Michael Jackson. He got to buy some kids, he wasn't gay (as far as I know). Would MJ's kids have grown up ok without a mother?
If I see lack of reading comprehension evidence relating to responses to my post/s, I will continue to point it out without permission from you or anyone else, thanks all the same.