189 Comments »

1. Interesting that those dreaded socialists are so strongly in favour of keeping the state out of people’s bedrooms and that the conservatives are ever so fine the bedroom part and are quite solely concerned about their pocket books: “if you just don’t tax me, I’m fine with everything else” – in the US this attitude spreads as far being fine with scrapping the Geneva Convention, torture them, but please, for the sake of God, don’t tax them… Hey, flaming is fun! Maybe I could be a guest blogger here!

   Comment by mjr — Sat, Oct 14th, 2006 @ 12:56 pm

2. Long live the Nordic GLB-rights!
   This would never happen in the Baltics where gays are attacked every now and then.

   Comment by Boyle — Sat, Oct 14th, 2006 @ 1:08 pm

3. Well, this was of course the right decision. Though not without problems and controversies, as you point out.

   BTW, I think Kari Rajamäki should finally do the right thing, quit SDP and join the National Coalition or the True Finns. I just can’t believe such a right wing character is even allowed to stay a member of a party calling itself “sosialdemocratic”, let alone to be a high profile government minister for the same…

   Comment by Drakon — Sat, Oct 14th, 2006 @ 1:23 pm

4. “The question is of course about money, should taxpayers be forced to pay for a procedure that goes against their beliefs?”

   It never was a question of if the treatments should be funded with tax payers money or not. They are not. Single women and lesbian couples who in principle are “physically able” to get pregnant have not not received any financial aid from the state to their fertility treatments, they’ve paid it all themselves. And that’s how it’s going to be in the future as well.

   A whole other issue are the women who have some medical problem prohibiting them to get pregnant. These people should have (in my opinion) state funding for their treatments, be they gay or straight, single or not single.

   Comment by Åboy — Sat, Oct 14th, 2006 @ 1:33 pm

5. [Edit: "..have not received any financial aid.."]

   Comment by Åboy — Sat, Oct 14th, 2006 @ 1:35 pm

6. Åboy – thanks for that, I’ve misunderstood the article. I even translated the orginal Finnish article and don’t remember reading that.

   Comment by Phil — Sat, Oct 14th, 2006 @ 1:37 pm

7. My concern now for these who take part in fertility treatments is the quality of donors they have available. Finnish law states that a child of a sperm donor has a right at age 18 to contact their donor. I might consider donating sperm, but if some kid is going to pop up on my doorstep in 18 years, there’s no way I’d ever think about donating.

   I think the right of a person to know his roots is important. Who has the right to take that away? Anonymous donations are problematic because they take away that right. However, I don’t think donators should have any legal obligations towards the child.

   Comment by Persson — Sat, Oct 14th, 2006 @ 1:55 pm

8. I think the right of a person to know his roots is important.

   It’s just a guy jerking off in a cup. And speaking of rights, shouldn’t the donor have the right to do so anonymously? And shouldn’t the sperm bank have the right to destroy the records? And shouldn’t the parents have the right not to tell their child? Maybe they don’t want the kid to know.

   Now, the child certainly has a right to investigate, but I’d leave it up to the parents. And let the donors choose whether or not to remain anonymous, and when the parents are choosing a donor, maybe they’ll choose an anonymous donor, maybe they won’t.

   What if mommy sleeps around so much that she doesn’t know who the father is – should the state do everything it can to find the father? What if the father moved abroad and/or isn’t Finnish, does the child still have a right? A right is something that can’t be taken away, and in this situation, it could be taken away, so it can’t be a right.

   Comment by Phil — Sat, Oct 14th, 2006 @ 2:10 pm

9. BTW – how much does this fertility treatment cost? KELA or others don’t pay ANY money towards this at all?

   Comment by Phil — Sat, Oct 14th, 2006 @ 2:10 pm

10. If I remember correctly the people who have a medical problem in getting pregnant do get some form of financial help for their treatments from the government (don’t know how much). On the other hand the people who do not have a medical problem in getting pregnant also do not receive any financial help for their treatments from the government.

    Only thing they tried to do with this law was to make it illegal for single women and women couples to have any fertility treatments at all, even when they would’ve paid it themselves. That’s what this was all about and I’m glad they didn’t make a decision like that.

    Comment by Åboy — Sat, Oct 14th, 2006 @ 2:16 pm

11. If I remember correctly the people who have a medical problem in getting pregnant do get some form of financial help for their treatments from the government (don’t know how much).

    Wow, I would have thought that the state would have surely paid for all of it.

    Only thing they tried to do with this law was to make it illegal for single women and women couples to have any fertility treatments at all, even when they would’ve paid it themselves. That’s what this was all about and I’m glad they didn’t make a decision like that.

    Yes, absolutely. It kinda scares me that 85 of our MP’s were against this!

    Comment by Phil — Sat, Oct 14th, 2006 @ 2:20 pm

12. As a Christian, even though I’m very moderate and liberal, I find it unacceptable that children won’t even get a chance to have a father-figure.
    To me this is just a “liberalism until death” concept.

    Comment by Mikael — Sat, Oct 14th, 2006 @ 2:33 pm

13. What a child needs is unconditional love, clear boundaries and safety – these are not gender- or sexuality based issues, and the fact is that we have horrifying acts committed against children in all kinds of families. I would not really take “nature” as any good example how we should behave humanely… The Nazis did of course though, and actually aimed to correct and help nature in eliminating homosexuals and other “unnatural” folk (regardless of their ability to love and protect small children among others).

    Comment by mjr — Sat, Oct 14th, 2006 @ 2:55 pm

14. I find it unacceptable that children won’t even get a chance to have a father-figure.

    I wonder if children of lesbian couples say, “I find it unacceptable that children won’t even get a chanc to have a second mother.” I’d reckon they love their second mothers as much as other children love their fathers.

    Comment by Phil — Sat, Oct 14th, 2006 @ 3:09 pm

15. What a child needs is unconditional love, clear boundaries and safety – these are not gender- or sexuality based issues, and the fact is that we have horrifying acts committed against children in all kinds of families. I would not really take “nature” as any good example how we should behave humanely… The Nazis did of course though, and actually aimed to correct and help nature in eliminating homosexuals and other “unnatural” folk (regardless of their ability to love and protect small children among others).

    To me it just doesn’t feel right – even if I don’t take a Biblical stance on this issue. I would simply not myself want to have two mothers and therefore I can’t put a child in that position.

    Comment by Mikael — Sat, Oct 14th, 2006 @ 3:40 pm

16. I wonder if children of lesbian couples say, “I find it unacceptable that children won’t even get a chanc to have a second mother.” I’d reckon they love their second mothers as much as other children love their fathers.

    So you’re saying that having two mothers, instead of a mother and a father, would be okay for you?

    Comment by Mikael — Sat, Oct 14th, 2006 @ 3:41 pm

17. I would think that these lebian couples would want to shop for some desirable sperm. Just ask one of their friend’s for some. This way they at least are familiar with the tree that their fruit is coming from. Really, how many donors are doing this for something more honorable than money and how many of these donors have an advance education?

    As for the right to know who the father is, asking a friend to donate takes care of that. Then again, you can always say that it’s uncle Suomi. I can’t see how any donor would be excited about the possibility of some stranger hunting them down 18-20 years after they donate. What kind of gift is that. To be fair, the donor should have the right to be part of the child’s life soon after birth. This reminds me of the dad on hunger strike on the parliment’s steps. He claimed that the Finnish State removes the dad from the family unit the first chance they get. This vote sure fit’s with that claim.

    Comment by Fred Fry — Sat, Oct 14th, 2006 @ 3:42 pm

18. #Fred Fry

    I am not sure but I thought that in Finland sperm donors don’t receive any money for *doing their thing*

    Comment by Blah — Sat, Oct 14th, 2006 @ 4:06 pm

19. I often support anything that would advance gay rights, but I have my doubts regarding this law. It’s not as much about the lesbian couples seeking treatment, but single women doing it. Many people say that it’s important to have mother and father figures, but I believe It’s a lot more important to be able to have stable relationships when child and have a stable living environment. The doubt I have about single mothers is that single person can not often provide as stable home as two parent home.

    I know there are currently plenty of single parent homes and the children don’t turn out to be mentally ill any way. They might even turn out to be more independant and capable of initiative. However, the question I wonder is whether we should be deliberately bringing children into life in home which has less chances of stability. Although, it’s not like the life with two parents is always rosy either, so in reality it might not even make a difference.

    In case of lesbian couples, it is also makes me wonder how important the father figure is for children. I like to believe, however, that while does need some sort of male model, it does not necessarily have to be as close as family. It could be a good family friend of relative too.

    To be honest, however, I fear the biggest problem with lesbian couples is the society. Are we ready for them? My point is, imagine the position of the child as viewed by others. Would he be made fun of, because he is child of a lesbian couple? Would he gain too much pressure from outside? This is, of course, not the fault of the parents in anyway, but it’s the society’s fault. It is a problem nonetheless.

    Comment by Rithiur — Sat, Oct 14th, 2006 @ 4:08 pm

20. Oh, and also about the sperm donating thing. My personal opinion is that there should be no records at all. In fact, I believe it should be made as hard as possible for the children to find their biological father and the father to find the child. They were never meant to have any relationship with eachother, and that’s who it should be.

    We make too much fuss over biological parents anyway. All they did was give the child the genetical makeup, nothing else. It’s much more important who the children’s mother and father were for growing up. We are, pychological beings, after all.

    Comment by Rithiur — Sat, Oct 14th, 2006 @ 4:12 pm

21. Please tell me what you think a father figure is? What does he do? What is so special that only he (a male) can fulfill this task?

    I think it’s all about nothing! There is nothing special to a father. He is just a parent of the male gender. When others talk about a father role or figure they all come up with old fashioned, traditional, and very role-pattern confirming nonsense. Any women parent can be the hard worker in the family; can play football with the kids; can be obsessed with motorised things, etc.

    And if you’re a young adult son of a lesbian couple you have the advantage of talking about other girls’ boobs with your mother and your other mother!

    Comment by majava — Sat, Oct 14th, 2006 @ 6:41 pm

22. No money to donate sperm? OK, so just what is the incentive? Are they forcing unemployed to clinics in order to collect unemployment? Are there only a handful of donors responsible for all the births where all these kids end up being half-related? There is one donor ‘dad’ in the US who has over 300 children. Of course a good number of them have hunted him down as well as their half-brothers and sisters. There is even a website up to help you track down kid’s with the same sperm donor.

    OK, where is the concern for men who want to be single dads…….

    Comment by Fred Fry — Sat, Oct 14th, 2006 @ 6:54 pm

23. I think that those Hesari’s pictures are extemely well picked.

    Comment by PTJ Uusitalo — Sat, Oct 14th, 2006 @ 7:08 pm

24. So you’re saying that having two mothers, instead of a mother and a father, would be okay for you?

    That’s a difficult question now since I had a father. But who knows, maybe growing up with two mothers is even better. Maybe children of lesbian couples are experiencing something sooo much better than I’ll ever know about.

    Comment by Phil — Sat, Oct 14th, 2006 @ 7:42 pm

25. However, the question I wonder is whether we should be deliberately bringing children into life in home which has less chances of stability

    Well the state takes at least half your income. So whose fault is the instability?

    Comment by Phil — Sat, Oct 14th, 2006 @ 7:44 pm

26. They were never meant to have any relationship with eachother, and that’s who it should be.

    We make too much fuss over biological parents anyway. All they did was give the child the genetical makeup, nothing else. It’s much more important who the children’s mother and father were for growing up. We are, pychological beings, after all.

    I completely agree.

    Comment by Phil — Sat, Oct 14th, 2006 @ 7:45 pm

27. Phil I love how you name those pictures

    Comment by Blah — Sat, Oct 14th, 2006 @ 8:51 pm

28. “We make too much fuss over biological parents anyway. All they did was give the child the genetical makeup, nothing else. ”

    Sure, really not relevant, right?

    “We are, pychological beings, after all.”

    Exactly! Did you ask yourself how the child will react in the primary school when he realizes that the others have a mother and father and he has two mothers? Or when he is a teenager?

    Do not tell me this does not matter and that this has no impact from the psycological point of view. There are not studies on these issues. So, this means that there are no studies proving that it has no impact as well as there are no studies proving it has impact.

    As a conclusion, I would prefer not to take any risk, do the child-interests and let mother-Nature do what has been created: a father and a mother are needed for a child.

    Comment by Dario — Sat, Oct 14th, 2006 @ 9:08 pm

29. why a child shouldnt have the right to find his or her biological father? Almost all of us had their parents together while growing up. But if you see through a kids point of view, its almost unbearable not knowing the mystery person who is his/her father, like all the other kids have. The trauma is almost same as children whose parents are divorced and they have to stay with one and away from other.
    Its a psychological burden on them. After 18, when they are old enough to understand relationships and their complexity in this way, they should be at least able to know is their father. And of course, by donating sperm you are now obliged to pay for them all your life (by law too). And they wont come to stay in your home too .
    Its a pleasure and pride for them to know their biological father and mother and it really would feel different.

    Comment by mil — Sat, Oct 14th, 2006 @ 9:32 pm

30. Exactly! Did you ask yourself how the child will react in the primary school when he realizes that the others have a mother and father and he has two mothers? Or when he is a teenager?

    All kids get made fun of one way or another. If the kids do get made fun of for having two mommys, it’s because the state-run schools haven’t taught them to accept the many types of families.

    Comment by Phil — Sat, Oct 14th, 2006 @ 10:05 pm

31. This is going to be great for those that will have a surprise when they get married…wow, your my half sister ? wow your my half brother ?
    Must have had the same sperm doner parent…hahaha. Im this small country of Finlanf ? this is going to get interesting later….in another 30 years, the question will not be do you take this woman to be your wife, but the question will be..Is this your half sister? ahh such is the way of a trailer trash socialist state…welcome to the future!

    Comment by me from U.S — Sat, Oct 14th, 2006 @ 11:13 pm

32. Young people and children learn faster than elders. I am pretty sure that a preschooler will accept two mother concept before pope does.
    Also, mother nature created a family just for protection of child, especially the father. The men are made stronger and powerful to protect children, almost millions of years childrens were protected group of males on first line of defence and then by group of females as a second line of defence. So its nothing different if a young kid is taken care by two mothers.
    Anyway, it will come, sooner or later, so why not accept it now and let few more people happy.

    Comment by mil — Sat, Oct 14th, 2006 @ 11:22 pm

33. I really can’t take this bullying argument very seriously – so Jewish parents should not have had babies in Germany in the 1930´s or “Kulak” parents in the Soviet Union? Worse than bullying happened to those families. Children actually can be very accepting, the sharklike reflexes for blood in the water relate to something else than the nominal “reasons” as easy as it is to blame the victim…

    Comment by mjr — Sat, Oct 14th, 2006 @ 11:41 pm

34. “All kids get made fun of one way or another. If the kids do get made fun of for having two mommys, it’s because the state-run schools haven’t taught them to accept the many types of families.”

    What I wrote was only one example of the thousands of embarassing situations the child will face.

    In general, growing up without the father or a mother is not a nice situation. Everybody agrees on that, right? In case of one of the parents is missing because of an accident or whatever, we can do nothing about it. It is part of life.

    But in this case, we are artificially putting a child in an abnormal condition where he does not have a father! Why shall we allow this?
    Who gives us the right to consciously deny the presence of a father to a child?

    Comment by Dario — Sun, Oct 15th, 2006 @ 12:06 am

35. Who gives us the right to consciously deny the presence of a father to a child?
    And who gives us right to deny two persons (gays or lesbians) who are genetically compelled to get attracted towards same sex, staying together and having children, that is emotional need of all living beings?

    Comment by mil — Sun, Oct 15th, 2006 @ 12:25 am

36. #33 You had said if one parent is missing because of an accident it’s not nice. I agree losing a parent is a terrible thing. But in a same sex marriage there isn’t a parent missing. There ARE two parents. What does it matter if they are both female for example?

    What if a guy is really effeminate and is married and has kids? Is that like one parent is missing too? Or if the wife is a real tomboy and does manly stuff just like her husband? Do their actions count or is it just purely their sex that counts? Do you consider them to be growing up without a father or mother in that case if the parent acts like a member of the opposite sex? Are we denying them a parent in that case?

    Lots of kids are in families you would consider “normal” with a mommy and daddy who are physically present who could care less about them. I don’t think that just by having a male and female combo as parents it makes a better family or better equipped to raise a child. Even if you are in a male-female parenting situation there is no guarantee the father or mother is active and present. I think the important thing is to have people who love you and care for you.

    Anyway, even if both parents are mommies who is to say that the child can’t have male role models who are active and present in their life? Is giving sperm the only criteria to be a father? By definition yes but in practice I think not.

    Comment by - — Sun, Oct 15th, 2006 @ 12:56 am

37. “And who gives us right to deny two persons (gays or lesbians) who are genetically compelled to get attracted towards same sex, staying together and having children, that is emotional need of all living beings?”
    – It is mother nature that created this situation. As for”having children” that is just not possible without doing things that are either the exception in normal relationships or considered cheating.

    Gay relationships fail the box test. Two males or two femalse cannot reprodice on their own. They REQUIRE the intervention of a third person to reproduce, or need to adopt. As for having two moms, that is a falsehood as well. One of them can only be a step-mom.

    Don’t get me wrong, I accept gay and lesbian relationships. For the mere reason above I am against calling them marriages. Reproduction is not natural in a ‘gay marriage’ so to put it on equal footing is silly.

    “I think it’s all about nothing! There is nothing special to a father. He is just a parent of the male gender. When others talk about a father role or figure they all come up with old fashioned, traditional, and very role-pattern confirming nonsense. Any women parent can be the hard worker in the family; can play football with the kids; can be obsessed with motorised things, etc.”
    – Yes well, fathers might be of no good, but you still need a man for the sperm. They should publish your thoughts and post them outside donation clinics.

    “And if you’re a young adult son of a lesbian couple you have the advantage of talking about other girls’ boobs with your mother and your other mother! ”
    – I can see how a lesbian mom would be so interested in talking about other woman’s boobs! However, I doubt the boy is going to be as eager about it. Score one for having a Dad around!

    Comment by Fred Fry — Sun, Oct 15th, 2006 @ 1:27 am

38. “I would think that these lebian couples would want to shop for some desirable sperm. Just ask one of their friend’s for some.”

    But maybe they don’t want a penis inside them?

    “Reproduction is not natural in a ‘gay marriage’ so to put it on equal footing is silly.”

    Marriage is about much more than just reproduction.

    Besides maybe in the future they can have a child that is the biological child of them both.

    Comment by Pave — Sun, Oct 15th, 2006 @ 3:18 am

39. Women, just like men have a right to their own bodies. And kids should have a right to both parents.

    But I don’t really care. As long as I’m not paying for it, do what you want, it isn’t my concern.

    Comment by Frustrated Finn — Sun, Oct 15th, 2006 @ 3:18 am

40. “But I don’t really care. As long as I’m not paying for it, do what you want, it isn’t my concern.”
    – I agree. Just don’t ask me to pay for it or to help clean up the mess afterwards! (Then again you’ll all pay because they’ll me more lining up for that free education and health care.)

    Comment by Fred Fry — Sun, Oct 15th, 2006 @ 4:56 am

41. What ever happened to a Mother and a Father?

    Guess the Political Correctness folks did them in? Giving Kids no rights?

    Have to love the left, they can sure mess up a lot of kids.

    Comment by winter — Sun, Oct 15th, 2006 @ 6:09 am

42. We have the real answer “because the state-run schools haven’t taught them to accept the many types of families.”

    See, its all the welfare states fault. They have not got the brainwashing down to a politically correct science.

    To bad we can’t blaim Bush here.

    Comment by winter — Sun, Oct 15th, 2006 @ 6:13 am

43. #36 You talk about mother nature creating a situation where gay couples can’t reproduce. Same sex marraiges can’t reproduce so they are unnatural and thus fail the “functionality” test. So then, according to that argument, any couple who can’t reproduce without assistance shouldn’t be allowed to have kids? If a father’s sperm count is too low then they shouldn’t be allowed to use another man’s sperm to have a child? Having another man’s sperm is certainly an exception in a normal relationship right? They require a third party to intervene to conceive (as with all IVF for example).

    You say that you are against calling gay relationships marraiges because those people cannot reproduce on their own. They should not be on equal footing with marraiges where reproduction is naturally possible. In a male-female relationship where reproduction is not possible, should we not call that a marraige? Should we not put that on equal footing to a male-female marraige in which reproduction IS possible?

    I am just wondering what do the term marraige and reproduction really have to do with each other according to mother nature? Since when is marraige a prerequisite for reproduction? Last time I checked mother nature didn’t require anybody to get married before they had sex and created a baby. Yes you need male sperm and a female egg to create a child. But kids can be (and are) raised by all kinds of people – they can be raised by grandparents, adoptive parents, single parents etc. In many societies kids are for all practical purposes raised by groups of women. The men are off hunting or working for example for long periods of time. There are many different types of societies where kids are raised in different ways. I’m not saying that the traditional “mother-father” parenting scenario is wrong but what makes it the only right way to raise children?

    Comment by - — Sun, Oct 15th, 2006 @ 7:23 am

44. “Besides maybe in the future they can have a child that is the biological child of them both.”

    In that case they would always be female (XX).

    Comment by m — Sun, Oct 15th, 2006 @ 10:23 am

45. But in this case, we are artificially putting a child in an abnormal condition where he does not have a father!

    If I ever have children in Finland, I’ll be putting them in an abnormal situation – They won’t have two Finnish parents. They’ll have a father who speaks weird Finnish, and who doesn’t like ice-hockey, fishing, hunting, old Mercedes, and mämmi.

    Comment by Phil — Sun, Oct 15th, 2006 @ 11:37 am

46. Strange to be in full agreement with Phil – you sound immediately ever so sensible when you drop your bonkers economic ideas…

    Comment by mjr — Sun, Oct 15th, 2006 @ 12:11 pm

47. #45

    I agree this is about the first time when phil makes sense to me if only he could leave those mumbo-jumbo economic ideals behind him

    Comment by Blah — Sun, Oct 15th, 2006 @ 1:03 pm

48. #8

    And speaking of rights, shouldn’t the donor have the right to do so anonymously?And shouldn’t the sperm bank have the right to destroy the records?

    The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child give children the right to know their identity. I think that is more legitimate than any possibility to donate sperm or egg cells anomymously.

    And shouldn’t the parents have the right not to tell their child? Maybe they don’t want the kid to know.

    http://boes.org/un/engun-c.html

    Articles 7-9.

    And why should the parents have a greater right to refuse a child this right than any other person? The child should not be a continuation of its parents’ egos.

    What if mommy sleeps around so much that she doesn’t know who the father is – should the state do everything it can to find the father?

    That’s a different situation. In this case the child is not “created” by the authorities in the same sense. The state can’t and shouldn’t control this behavior.

    A right is something that can’t be taken away, and in this situation, it could be taken away, so it can’t be a right.

    Rights can be taken away, but it is illegal.

    Comment by Persson — Sun, Oct 15th, 2006 @ 1:56 pm

49. I want to clarify, that I think the child should be told at some point of his/her biological roots (maybe at the age of 18). The person could then decide if he wants to know who his biological parent(s) is. As someone said, it can be important psychologically.

    Comment by Persson — Sun, Oct 15th, 2006 @ 2:03 pm

50. #48

    And important in a medical sense. heart diseases, history of cancer occurance in the donors relatives and etc. atleast records should be kept about the donors medical history or/and the possibility for the child to contact him when he/she turns 18 but the donor should not have any legal obligation towards the child in guestion.

    Comment by Blah — Sun, Oct 15th, 2006 @ 2:20 pm

51. @44,Phil, I gave the argument that with this law we create consciously a child without a father, that this is a not nice situation that the society decides to create artificially (instead than trying to avoid it whenever possible).

    and you argue that this is similar to the case where the parents are not from the same nationality? That those two kinds of “abnormal situations” are comparable???

    Are you serious? Is this the best you can do to comment my argument?

    Comment by Dario — Sun, Oct 15th, 2006 @ 2:37 pm

52. @35, “lots of kids are in families you would consider “normal” with a mommy and daddy who are physically present who could care less about them.”

    Very sad of course. You agree it is not a nice situation, right? You would like to avoid it, right? Unfortunately, we cannot do nothing about it.

    You are contracdicting yourself and you are telling I am right without knowing it. In case of fertility treatment for two lesbians, we artificially create the situation where the father is not there to care for the child.

    Comment by Dario — Sun, Oct 15th, 2006 @ 2:41 pm

53. Nobody thinks to the psichological implications for the child, here? Everybody saying that two mums would take care of the child in a good way.

    I do not doubt it from the point of view of giving them shelter, food and so on. But what about their contribute to the personality?

    I make an example. When you were teenagers and you had sex questions you decided to go to your mother or father depending on “something”. What is this “something”? I do not know, but probably has to do with the personality and the sex of the parent has something to do with it!!!

    Comment by Dario — Sun, Oct 15th, 2006 @ 2:44 pm

54. What I find problematic with this legislation is that it is gender-specific, not general. Laws like this are meant to increase equality but in effect may also create inequality all the same. In this case it seems that womens’ right to reproduction will be more protected than the same rights for men. Fertility treatment for lesbian couples and single women is great, but in the same way male gay couples and single men should get a right to a rent-a-womb-arrangement under the same or a similar law.

    The mostly unuttered idea for many feminists seems to be that the mother is primary for the children and the father is of only fringe importance. Those who -consciously or unconsciosly- hold a view like this could be considered female chauvinists and outright enemies of equality. Majava, you state above (#21) that a father is merely a parent of male gender, nothing more. If you can extend that also to the mother, wy could agree. Otherwise you could be well accused of chauvinism.

    There is two ways to sort this out. Either (in the general interest of equality) we promote full rights to parenthood for both sexes, single, gay, anything, or then we go the other way and say that the sexes are biologically so different that parenthood is more natural to women. But if we go there way, men should also be able to claim their biological distinctiveness in other areas (better pay because of “better physical ability”, more management positions for “natural leadership potential”, status as “provider” etc.)

    Personally, I am for the “equality”-option, but can understand those who go the other way, if they really apply it the same way for both sexes. Chauvinism, male or female, is not an option.

    Comment by Drakon — Sun, Oct 15th, 2006 @ 3:45 pm

55. m@43:

    Unless it’s a couple of gay men.

    Comment by Pave — Sun, Oct 15th, 2006 @ 3:58 pm

56. I knew someone would use this as an argument:

    “You talk about mother nature creating a situation where gay couples can’t reproduce. Same sex marraiges can’t reproduce so they are unnatural and thus fail the “functionality” test. So then, according to that argument, any couple who can’t reproduce without assistance shouldn’t be allowed to have kids?”

    – Heterosexual couples that cannot reproduce are the exception. They also REQUIRE assistance. However, MOST do not. ALL Gay couples REQUIRE assistance. None can reproduce on their own.

    “If a father’s sperm count is too low then they shouldn’t be allowed to use another man’s sperm to have a child?”
    – There is no need to use another man’s sperm in cases of low sperm count. They collect his sperm and concentrate it. The doctors love this treatment because there is a good chance that the problem will be carried over to any boys they have. They call it job security for the industry.

    I am not against rights for gay couples in a civil union. you can even call each other your wife or partner. I also think these relationships should have legal rights. (Then again, I also think that people should have the right to have a civil union with more than one person as well to cater for bisexuals.)

    Hey, is there any right for the sperm donor to know where his seed has gone?

    Comment by Fred Fry — Sun, Oct 15th, 2006 @ 4:17 pm

57. i don’t like the fact that fatherhood is thought as meaningless. I admit that fatherhood hasn’t meant a great deal even before the legislation, because as a father you can’t claim fatherhood on child without mother’s consent. (you are assumed to be the father if married to mother, but you need mother’s consent to stay married. and of course mother can always with the aid of dna-tests take the fatherhood away if you’re married and not the biological father.)

    This legislation sends a message that all you need to give birth to a child is a mother. a couple of wanker-alfamales (runkkarialfauros) can inseminate all the females. I thinkt that every male should take responsibilty for their sperm, or at least everysperm that succesfully meets an egg. men should fight to have their part in reproduction recognized. men should, like general jack. d. ripper , deny their essence from women, if women deny men their right to their biological children.

    You think that i’m joking, but in a way i’m serious. i don’t think that the only thing that makes a parent is keeping a child in your womb for 9 months. Doesn’t this new law make it illegal to rent wombs (kohdunvuokraus. ei ole nyt minulla sanavarastossa hyvää englanninnosta). and even previously the couples who have used surrogate mothers have had to adopt their biological child.

    And it doesn’t seem to me that the same people, who have fought for the right of every woman to have children without men, will fight for the right of every man to have children without women. not at least tarja halonen and many like her.

    It is not the womb time that makes the parent. Now that men will be able to give away their right to their biological children, there should be tools for women to give up their right to their child as well. e.g. you could sign a contract that gives the custody of the possible result of the intercourse to the male. of course the female should be compensated for the inconvience of pregancy.

    The upside in patriarchal society was that the women needed men as much as men needed women. Now in the days of economic independence of women and maternal leaves and daycare there seems to be no real need for men. alas it seems that even in the intercourse the male specialty, penetration, doesn’t have as much to do with the female sexual pleasures as we men would like to think. Only thing we men can sell is the warm image of traditional family with traditional values. fortunately many women are still interested in that.

    Comment by Paavo Ojala — Sun, Oct 15th, 2006 @ 4:46 pm

58. All this philosophical discussion is wonderful. But I was hoping more for details about any dildo party that may have occured after the picture was taken

    Comment by Kristian (in Espoo) — Sun, Oct 15th, 2006 @ 5:48 pm

59. I haven’t gone through the 57 comments, and I leave my two cents.
    It is a shame that single women or lesbian couples are allowed to give birth to a child. It is an act of selfishness.

    God has created the man as the result of a relation between a man and a woman, and nobody can deny A PRIORI to a child the right to live in a family with no father, or even worse, two mothers. You don’t believe in God? Good as well, nature has made things so, since forever, that a child is born as a result of the relation… you know the rest.

    Of course, I am also against letting single (man or women) or gay (man or women) couples to adopt a child, for the child’s own sake.

    Phil, what is the situation? How many for and how many against? Maybe you can make a poll?

    Comment by Simo — Sun, Oct 15th, 2006 @ 7:14 pm

60. @58. Ok. sorry I had not looked at the poll results…
    Seems like I am in minority.

    Comment by Simo — Sun, Oct 15th, 2006 @ 7:15 pm

61. “Good as well, nature has made things so, since forever, that a child is born as a result of the relation… you know the rest.”

    You can’t deduce how things should be from the way things are, i.e. no morals from facts.

    The fact that lots of Africans are dying from malaria perfectly naturally doesn’t make it morally desirable.

    Comment by m — Sun, Oct 15th, 2006 @ 8:22 pm

62. #55 If you really beleive that only couples that CAN reproduce should reproduce then logically it should apply to couples with fertility problems as well. If nature intended infertile couples to be fertile then they would be right? Your “exception” is just based upon your own values not on any logical argument. It doesn’t have anything to do with all or partial assistance to reproduce. Maybe mother nature made infertile couples because they have genetic defects and they shouldn’t reproduce. Maybe mother nature wants a healthy female and male to reproduce (which is the case when a gay couple raises a child). Mother nature didn’t REQUIRE marraige between a male and female to have or raise kids. If someone raises the child and cares for the child then (according to mother nature) it survives. It has nothing to do with male-female couples.

    Comment by - — Sun, Oct 15th, 2006 @ 8:37 pm

63. Men and women are different and bring differnt aspects to raising a child. Feel free to discount the value of a father in a lesbian family, just don’t kid yourself that it will not effect a boy child in a negative way. It has already been documented that children, especially girls, will go looking for a father figure if there is not one at home.

    As for infertile couples, it is only modern technology that now permits them to have children. As I said before, in general most heterosexual couples need no assistance to have a child. All gay couples require assistance to have a child. So I am not buying into gay relationships are equal to heterosexual ones. They are different.

    I agree with the poster above in that men should be responsible for their sperm as should mothers know exactly where their child’s sperm is coming from. All sperm is not equal.

    Gee, the amount of hostility against marriage is somewhat shocking.

    Comment by Fred Fry — Sun, Oct 15th, 2006 @ 10:40 pm

64. “As for infertile couples, it is only modern technology that now permits them to have children. As I said before, in general most heterosexual couples need no assistance to have a child. All gay couples require assistance to have a child. So I am not buying into gay relationships are equal to heterosexual ones. They are different.”

    You’re just evading the point and you know it. It’s like you noticed that you’re basis is off and now you’re stuck on this “broken record” mode because you have a serious cognitive dissonance going on.

    Indeed, if you base your ban for fertility treatments to lesbian couples in their “natural” unability to conceive a child together then it also logically follows that the same should hold for infertile straight couples. They also are “naturally” unable to conceive a child together. In both cases, only the modern techonology can help the couple.

    Comment by Åboy — Sun, Oct 15th, 2006 @ 11:12 pm

65. #62 Yes, men and women do bring different things to raising a child. So do different people. “Bringing different things to the table” isn’t the criteria for being a good parent. It involves a lot more than that. If there are same sex parents it might be negative for the child and it might not. Just like in a male-female pareting situation it might be negative for the child and it might not -depending on the parents they get. I can and do see the value in a male female parenting situation, I’m not denying that. I think a father should be involved in his child’s life if possible. I just don’t think that by virtue of being a male female couple that it makes you great parents.

    The father isn’t being discounted in a same sex couple. The male that donates sperm knows that they will not be involved in the child’s life. And I’m sure that in some cases the person who donated the sperm is involved in the child’s life but maybe not in the traditional way.

    As for lacking a father figure, it is possible to have male role models or father figures in a child’s life even if the couple is of the same sex. There is no guarantee in male-female relationships that there is a father figure anyway. Just because you give somebody your sperm doesn’t mean you automatically are a father figure or are present in your child’s life.

    I am not hostile towards male female marraige at all. I am married myself and beleive in marraige. It can be a wonderful thing. But there are many ways of doing things – not just one right way for everybody as you seem to think. Marraige in and of itself is not the answer. When raising a child the important things are for example giving a child love, guidance, being their for the child, providing support, taking care of them and preparing them for the world. Marraige IS one way to do this. It’s not the only way. Just because you get married it doesn’t make you a good parent or any more capable of raising children. There are lots of crappy parents who are married. There are lots of good parents who are married. Just like there are lots of crappy parents who are not married. And just like there are lots of good parents who aren’t married.

    As for gay relationships being equal – you say the only determining factor to equality is whether or not one can reproduce? So the relationshihp of people (male female couples) who can’t reproduce are not equal to the relationship of people who can? I don’t think reproduction has anything to do with the equality (or quality for that matter) of one relationship to another. I can’t see denying people (who would otherwise be great parents to a child) the right to have a baby just because they are the same sex.

    Comment by - — Sun, Oct 15th, 2006 @ 11:34 pm

66. I want to clarify, that I think the child should be told at some point of his/her biological roots (maybe at the age of 18). The person could then decide if he wants to know who his biological parent(s) is. As someone said, it can be important psychologically.

    How about children who are adopted from abroad, let’s say Asia. Should the state do everything they can to hunt down their parents? Cause if children have a “right” to know, then they should.

    Comment by Phil — Sun, Oct 15th, 2006 @ 11:52 pm

67. and you argue that this is similar to the case where the parents are not from the same nationality? That those two kinds of “abnormal situations” are comparable???

    Are you serious? Is this the best you can do to comment my argument?

    I am serious. They’re both abnormal situations. In fact I think my situation would be more abnormal, there’s a lot more gay/lesbian couples out there than foreigners married to Finns.

    Comment by Phil — Sun, Oct 15th, 2006 @ 11:56 pm

68. I do not doubt it from the point of view of giving them shelter, food and so on. But what about their contribute to the personality?

    Even if it was a proven known fact that lesbian couples raising children do harm to a child and the only scientifically correct way to raise a child was mother and father…I wouldn’t care…if I man wants to jerk off in a cup, and a doctor wants to insert it into a female…we as a society have no right to stop them.

    Comment by Phil — Sun, Oct 15th, 2006 @ 11:59 pm

69. How about children who are adopted from abroad, let’s say Asia. Should the state do everything they can to hunt down their parents? Cause if children have a “right” to know, then they should.

    In theory a child has the right to know who it’s parents are. Not knowing who your biological parents are can be hard for some individuals. So an adoption situation can be more problematic than a common situaton. However, the state has no part in making the adopted child, so it’s not really the state’s responsibility to find out who the parents are.

    The reason I object to anonymous donations is because they deliberately take away people’s possibilies to know their full background. Apparently the new Finnish law gives children the right to know who their donors are at age 18. So that’s fine.

    Comment by Persson — Mon, Oct 16th, 2006 @ 12:13 am

70. “Indeed, if you base your ban for fertility treatments to lesbian couples in their “natural” unability to conceive a child together then it also logically follows that the same should hold for infertile straight couples.”
    – I do not advocate a ban. Where did I say that? (check comment 39)

    “You’re just evading the point and you know it. It’s like you noticed that you’re basis is off and now you’re stuck on this “broken record” mode because you have a serious cognitive dissonance going on.”
    – Which point? Please clarify and I will answer straight up.

    “There are lots of crappy parents who are married.”
    – Yes there are, sadly.

    I just wonder if the Finnish Government is all ready to inpregnate any woman who steps up for the procedure as a partial solution to the low growth rate problem. Might the Government be taking advantage of lesbians? Might they even encourage both partners to get pregnant?

    Can you ladies do any better than use a couple of infirtile heterosexual couples as the basis of your argument against my comments above?

    Anyway, be fruitful and multiply!

    Comment by Fred Fry — Mon, Oct 16th, 2006 @ 1:42 am

71. Oh, if it makes people happy, and doesn’t cost other taxpayers anything, then it’s all good.

    Comment by Finnpundit — Mon, Oct 16th, 2006 @ 5:48 am

72. Lets summarize:

    1) It is an act of selfishness.

    2) Its an act directly against the kids.

    3) It fits the normal EU image in the world. You don’t really care about the results, just let me have my coffee.

    Comment by winter — Mon, Oct 16th, 2006 @ 6:28 am

73. “I am serious. They’re both abnormal situations. In fact I think my situation would be more abnormal, there’s a lot more gay/lesbian couples out there than foreigners married to Finns.”

    Now you are just playing with words. There are more lesbian/gay couples than foreigners/Finn couples in Finland, but the criteria you picked up is not relevant to this discussion. The nationality of one of the parents is not relevant.

    The number of couples gay/lesbians WITH a child is currently zero, so that is the abnormal situation.

    Comment by Dario — Mon, Oct 16th, 2006 @ 7:15 am

74. “Even if it was a proven known fact that lesbian couples raising children do harm to a child and the only scientifically correct way to raise a child was mother and father…I wouldn’t care…if I man wants to jerk off in a cup, and a doctor wants to insert it into a female…we as a society have no right to stop them.”

    You are wrong in general with ethical issues. You would not care of the rights and the future life of that child.

    Comment by Dario — Mon, Oct 16th, 2006 @ 7:19 am

75. Apparently the new Finnish law gives children the right to know who their donors are at age 18. So that’s fine.

    I wonder, what kind of man would donate sperm, knowning that some kid could pop up on his stoop 18 years later. I’d think that would be a very difficult situation for some families to deal with, “Wife and kids, meet your long lost sibling. He wants to visit often and get involved with our lives.”

    I think you should have the right to jerk off into a cup anonymously.

    Comment by Phil — Mon, Oct 16th, 2006 @ 8:26 am

76. The number of couples gay/lesbians WITH a child is currently zero, so that is the abnormal situation.

    Wha???

    Now you are just playing with words.

    My point is that my abnormality in Finland isn’t any more abnormal than a lesbian couple in Finland.

    Comment by Phil — Mon, Oct 16th, 2006 @ 8:33 am

77. #70 So you didn’t imply that lesbian couples shouldn’t be eligible for fertility treatments? You didn’t specifically say “ban” but what exactly is your stance then?

    Your argument that couples with infertility problems “are the exception” for fertility treatment is not logical. That’s the point. You keep restating the basis of your argument AS IF it is logical. If you really beleived that people who are not able to conceive shouldn’t conceive then it would apply to couples with fertility problems too. You say you are applying a test of logic in your argument, but in reality, your argument is based upon your values, not logic. We don’t have to “do better” than the infertile couple example because one logical point is enough to prove your argument wrong.

    Comment by - — Mon, Oct 16th, 2006 @ 9:40 am

78. “It is an act of selfishness”

    Funny how suddenly wanting a child transforms into selfishness when the person wanting to become a parent is gay. But for straight person it’s totally okay and unselfish, of course.

    Can you say “double standards” and “hypocrisy”?

    “The number of couples gay/lesbians WITH a child is currently zero, so that is the abnormal situation.”

    Wrong: http://www.seta.fi/rainbow/engl.html

    Comment by Åboy — Mon, Oct 16th, 2006 @ 10:47 am

79. there were people who said its false that earth rotates around the sun, now we know how much they knew.
    Then came people who say children without marriage are ba****d, now what we think of those people.
    There were people who said, premarital s*x is a sin, what we think of those people now.
    There were again some who said, gays and lesbs are evils, etc etc, now what we think of them.
    Now there are some who are objecting this issue, what will we think of then after few years?
    Open your mind now..open open open..

    Comment by Mil — Mon, Oct 16th, 2006 @ 12:34 pm

80. “#70 So you didn’t imply that lesbian couples shouldn’t be eligible for fertility treatments? You didn’t specifically say “ban” but what exactly is your stance then? ”
    – I explained my stance in comment 40.
    – Let gay couples have children. I don’t think the government should be involved in the process, other than to set safety standards. Excluding gays and singles is not an option as they can go elsewhere or use other options.

    “Your argument that couples with infertility problems “are the exception” for fertility treatment is not logical.”
    – How is that not logical? If one in 10.000 Nokia phones is defective when it leaves the factory, that phone is an exception to a normally high-quality product. If every single phone leaving the factory is broken, then clearly something is wrong with either the design or the process to make it.

    – Infertility is a disease and can be treated. Gay couples are not infertile (OK some surely are, but lets move on) and need fertility treatment to have a child their way. who knows, they may even be taking reasources away from couples who need it simply because their lifestyle does not include intercourse that can end in pregnancy.

    “That’s the point. You keep restating the basis of your argument AS IF it is logical. If you really beleived that people who are not able to conceive shouldn’t conceive then it would apply to couples with fertility problems too.”
    – Why don’t you explain to me how lesbian couples can’t conceive. Are you saying that lesbains have a disease?

    “You say you are applying a test of logic in your argument, but in reality, your argument is based upon your values, not logic.”
    – I hope my explanation above is logical enough for you. If I were to listen to my values than I would say that lesbian and single parents should not be encouraged by allowing them to have this process. However, that is not a realistic position to take. However, to deny that there is a difference between gay and heterosexual couples is not logical in itself. The Lesbian community has a higher demand on reproductive services than the heterosexual community.

    As for Phil’s comments about parents from two countries, he is right. There are many issues that would not come up if both parents were from the same country.

    Comment by Fred Fry — Mon, Oct 16th, 2006 @ 2:54 pm

81. Drakon wrote: Majava, you state above (#21) that a father is merely a parent of male gender, nothing more. If you can extend that also to the mother, wy could agree.

    Then we agree on that, since I do extend that point of view to the female parent.

    Comment by majava — Mon, Oct 16th, 2006 @ 2:57 pm

82. I wonder, what kind of man would donate sperm, knowning that some kid could pop up on his stoop 18 years later. I’d think that would be a very difficult situation for some families to deal with, “Wife and kids, meet your long lost sibling. He wants to visit often and get involved with our lives.”

    Ok. Well in this case the child doesn’t have the right to demand anything of the biological parent (it can also be a woman). The donor can refuse to have anything to do with him. The child only has the right to know who his parents are. For some people it’s enough just to have a name. Because you can’t say “I’m the son of a sperm”:)

    Comment by Persson — Mon, Oct 16th, 2006 @ 3:38 pm

83. “Why don’t you explain to me how lesbian couples can’t conceive. Are you saying that lesbains have a disease?”

    Oh but hold on, what are you trying to say? Are you perhaps suggesting that lesbians should just go and get impregnated by some random male? Is that your point? That because lesbians are women and in theory could get pregnant the “old-fashined” way they should just stop the silly fussing about and go bang a man, is that it?

    Comment by Åboy — Mon, Oct 16th, 2006 @ 3:52 pm

84. @83 @78
    I am saying that it is AGAINST the human nature to conceive a baby between two man, two women, a single man, a single woman. For such a reason, it MUST NOT be allowed by law that a child is generated/adopted in a family that is not “natural”, because this is not where a child must grow up by nature.
    Of course, if the child is unfortunate enough to lose one of the parents after he’s born, that’s another issue: everybody agrees that a child living in a family with a single parent does not live in a situation of normality. Therefore, why should this situation of abnormality be allowed by law?

    Comment by Simo — Mon, Oct 16th, 2006 @ 4:29 pm

85. @79, Mil, that is a very stupid argument. What do you want to prove? That things cannot be considered as wrong?

    Nowadays pedophiles are considered bad. Shall not we consider it as bad and fight the phenomenon?

    Bah…

    Comment by Dario — Mon, Oct 16th, 2006 @ 4:37 pm

86. Dear Mr. Dario @79,
    There are right things and there are wrong things. I never support wrong things. And whatever you are linking here, it has nothing to do with this case, maybe you should have added few more things like murders, gangs, wars etc etc. You can have a pretty long list.
    When you discuss a subject, please think about it with open mind, and keep religion and culture aside, because many times these things block your mind.
    Think logically, thats what I want to say.
    Simply opposing something just because its new and never happened before, is a sign of closed mind.
    Two people of same sex, staying together and having a family is new idea, but I dont see anything bad in it, nobody is doing something wrong, kids are getting good life, whats wrong?
    There are problems in it just because society doesnt accept it, and they do so because they cant think beyond whatever is taught to them.
    Ok. let me compare your arguments with “the great” George Bush. He is arguing that stem cell research is wrong because it kills foetus. And he has banned all funding to it. I call it stupid argument. Because I am thinking beyond what religious texts say.
    Anyway, it has been accepted by law, and law is what majority thinks is ok and is acceptable by democracy. So, it is here, and you have to accept it, whether you consider it right or wrong, dowsnt matter.
    You can discuss it more and more, nothing will change.
    If you want to go to future, you have to leave past behind. If you keep it with you, its like trying to drive a car when its tied to a pole.

    Comment by Mil — Mon, Oct 16th, 2006 @ 5:06 pm

87. “For such a reason, it MUST NOT be allowed by law that a child is generated/adopted in a family that is not “natural”, because this is not where a child must grow up by nature.”

    By “nature” there would also be no children in straight-parent families where one or both of the parents are sterile. With the same “nature”-argument you should then ban those kinds of couples of having treatmenst or adoptions as well.

    And by the way, what is “nature” or “natural” anyway? By “nature” most of the prematurely born children would wither away, the mortally wounded and lethally ill would die. By “nature” the strongest would get what they wanted while the weak would weap. By “nature” people would move everywhere by foot, as by “nature” we have no combustion engine or wings. Do I need to go on?

    Comment by Åboy — Mon, Oct 16th, 2006 @ 5:20 pm

88. The types of biological reproduction that occurs in nature are fairly versatile, it is not even necessary to have a male and female in order to have offspring (look under “Reproduction” in Wikipedia.) Sure, sexual reproduction has the ‘advantage’ of mutation in gene, however, there are still beings that reproduce asexually. For those that use sexual reproduction, they don’t usually share the same kind of nuclear-family structure either – examples can be found in honey bees, ants, birds, fishes, whales.. etc. (In fact, societies by large don’t necessarily follow the nuclear-family.)

    The point is, it is not quite accurate to use ‘nature’ as an argument against lesbian/gay couples to have children. Nature is fairly practical – if a species can produce an offspring that can produce more offspring, it’s natural. So the parts that’s controversial are the social aspects – the gender, the sexuality, and the marital status of the parents.

    Here, I can see a lot of prejudices against lesbian/gay and single parent. When the society creates the prejudice against those minority, and pressures them to ‘conform’ the statistic norm, it simply violates the basic human rights – the rights to freedom of choice.

    Secondly, I disagree on the missing-figure arguments. Missing-figure arguments are saying that, because there might be potential pain and confusion, a life is not worth having and living. But living is about trade-off. A social-economically poor family may have difficulties to survive, but they will find a way to live it. The same would apply to lesbian/gay/ unmarried/mix-raced/mix-nationality couples. If the opponents are as caring as claimed to be, then the constructive way of dealing this, is to create a more tolerant society. An example would be, if a child is bullied at school, we should not focus on how not to have children, but on how to reduce bullies in school.

    Comment by David — Mon, Oct 16th, 2006 @ 5:21 pm

89. “I am saying that it is AGAINST the human nature to conceive a baby between two man, two women, a single man, a single woman.”

    Don’t be stupid. Could you possibly sound more bigoted? It’s not AGAINST anything. It’s just impossible and thats the way it happens to be.

    There is lots of asexual reproduction in the nature. And hermafroditism too.

    Comment by m — Mon, Oct 16th, 2006 @ 5:26 pm

90. “there are still beings that reproduce asexually.”

    Actually there’s a hell of a lot more of them than us.

    Comment by m — Mon, Oct 16th, 2006 @ 5:28 pm

91. Simo, I think you don’t understand “human nature”. What is normal and what is not is for humans decided by culture and the concept of civilization. Very little is still nature about being a human. And if it would be, then also killing other humans for food or reproduction would be natural and therefore normal. But also Homosexual behaviour is natural. Some things are just not so convenient to be regarded as part of human nature, so we do away with them. That’s what humans are capable of and that’s what you see happening every day. What you call ‘abnormal’ in this issue, is simply your interpretation based on your cultural background, beliefs, etc.

    But perhaps that is exactly what human nature is. That we are constantly changing our behaviour according to what we at that time regard as normal and abnormal.

    If I need to apply it to this discussion I would say that asking what is normal or abnormal / natural or unnatural is irrelevant. The discussion should be focused only on the following questions: Is it possible? Is it harmful? Is it beneficial?

    Comment by majava — Mon, Oct 16th, 2006 @ 5:36 pm

92. Oh but hold on, what are you trying to say? Are you perhaps suggesting that lesbians should just go and get impregnated by some random male? Is that your point?

    – THE HORROR!
    – No it is not. Anyway that is what is happening now, only via a tube and not a penis.

    That because lesbians are women and in theory could get pregnant the “old-fashined” way they should just stop the silly fussing about and go bang a man, is that it?

    – Sorry but comparisons are being made to heterosexual couples who can’t conceive due to problems with their reproductive gear with problems of lesbian couples in conceiving.

    – Oh, and what do you mean by ‘in theory’? I would think that it is a fact that EVEN lesbians can get pregnant by having intercourse with a man.

    – There is one benefit of doing it the ‘old fashoined way.’ At least you know for sure the source of the sperm.

    – I admit that artificial incemination is the path for lesbians. However, I am pointing out their problem is different from others who have a problem with conceiving so I don’t buy the comparison between the two groups.

    Comment by Fred Fry — Mon, Oct 16th, 2006 @ 5:56 pm

93. @87
    What kind of examples do you make? The engine, who is an artifact made by man and you compare it with a HUMAN BEING?
    You would let a child live with 2 fathers/mothers? Or with a single woman/man a priori? bleah.

    @89

    First thing I do not permit to call me stupid or bigot because you don’t know me. Second, the examples on hermafrodits just fit my theory: they are in nature, but since milions of years, the human race has needed the union of A MAN AND A WOMAN to generate a new life. This means that the baby was meant tol ive in such an environment. If this cannot happen, because the father runs away, too bad for the child.

    So, it is AGAINST THE HUMAN nature to let this happen BY LAW? Do you understand this point?

    @91 What is normal for man is decided by nature, when we talk of generation of a human life… If a man + woman couple is sterile, I welcome the progress and artificial insemination. But for a gay/lesbian couple this is simply not allowable, for the child’s own sake.
    Homosexual behavior for me is very normal, but it is not possible to generate a child after a homosexual relation. So, it shall not be possible to do it artificially. Is it clear what I mean? Progress must not go against human nature.

    Comment by Simo — Mon, Oct 16th, 2006 @ 6:19 pm

94. Listen to yourself for a minute, Fred Fry. You’re actually saying that lesbians should go and get it on with a random male (!). Even though I suspected as much it still leaves me almost speechless..

    It’s exactly the same emotionally and intellectually as saying to a straight couple that the woman should go and have sex with another man, or the man with another woman.

    It’s exacly the same as saying to a straight person that “quit your whining and go have sex with someone of your own sex”.

    Simo wrote (in post 93):
    “What kind of examples do you make?

    The kind which show the fallacy of your stance. Your preconceptions of what’s natural and what’s not are misleading and erroneous. If you’re saying that fertility treatments to same-sex couples and singles are unnatural because they do occur in the “nature” you’re wrong. How do you define the realm of “nature”? Where is it? Who or what are part of it? Is modern techonology part of nature? Is modern medicine part of nature? If you say “no” then we’re all poor unnatural bastards as we’ve all been treated by modern medical science and we enjoy the comforts of modern technological advancements.

    “So, it is AGAINST THE HUMAN nature to let this happen BY LAW? Do you understand this point?”

    I understand that you’re stubborn and stuck in your ways and that you refuse to analyze properly what you’re saying. You’re being emotional and you’re condemning gay parents because of your subjective, prejudiced feelings.

    “What is normal for man is decided by nature”

    Oh dear.. Tell me, what is this mysterious entity called “Nature”? Are you referring to God or some other supernatural being, or what? Defining the concepts and terms that you use is extremy important, especially on a subject such as this one.

    “If a man + woman couple is sterile, I welcome the progress and artificial insemination. But for a gay/lesbian couple this is simply not allowable, for the child’s own sake.”

    Why? What are you afraid of?

    “Homosexual behavior for me is very normal, but it is not possible to generate a child after a homosexual relation. So, it shall not be possible to do it artificially.”

    This argument could also be rewritten thus: “Heterosexual behavior for me is very normal, but it is not possible to generate a child after a heterosexual relation where one or both of the participants are sterile. So, it shall not be possible to do it artificially.

    Comment by Åboy — Mon, Oct 16th, 2006 @ 6:43 pm

95. [Edit: "..If you’re saying that fertility treatments to same-sex couples and singles are unnatural because they do not occur in the “nature” you’re wrong.."]

    Comment by Åboy — Mon, Oct 16th, 2006 @ 6:45 pm

96. Åboy I see that you don’t want to understand what I say. I repeat for the last time: I agree with all the technological discoveries that allow heterosexual couples to have a child. Because two millions of years ago and forever and ever, when man was still a troglodite, this was the way how a child was conceived, and a mother and a father is the growing environment that Nature has set-up for human race.

    Nature has not set-up procreation for a gay/lesbian couple, so it shall not be possible to let a child be generated and grown up against nature. What would he do, how would he feel without a father/mather figure? Nature has made thigns so that children grow up with mother and father, man shall not go against nature and artificially make a child born in a family without father/mother.

    Do you get my point now? Do you get that I am not against progress and I welcome every technology/medicine progress that help mankind to live better, in the respect of what nature has made things?

    Comment by Simo — Mon, Oct 16th, 2006 @ 6:56 pm

97. How is this technological advance (fertility treatment for gay couples) any different from some other advancements (computers, aeroplanes, penicillin)?

    According to your logic:

    “Nature” has set up communication in such a way that people talk to each other face to face, not via electronical devices known as telephones or computers. Clearly telephones and computers are against “Nature”.

    “Nature” has set up humans so that they can only walk or run. No wings, no flying. Clearly aeroplanes are against “Nature”.

    “Nature has set up life so that bacteria and viruses can kill and cripple people. No artificially created medicines such as penicillin allowed. Clearly against “Nature”.

    Comment by Åboy — Mon, Oct 16th, 2006 @ 7:08 pm

98. Simo please define “nature” and “against nature”. Is modern technology part of nature?

    Comment by m — Mon, Oct 16th, 2006 @ 7:46 pm

99. Listen to yourself for a minute, Fred Fry. You’re actually saying that lesbians should go and get it on with a random male (!). Even though I suspected as much it still leaves me almost speechless..

    – No I am not. In that post I even stated that that is not my point. However, when you use the comment ‘random male’ just where does this sperm come from. Is there a catalog that you flip through and select a specific person’s sperm? To some degree it is random isn’t it? Much more so than going out and grabbing a guy.

    ***************************
    AGAIN, I am not suggesting that lesbians have sex with a man to get pregnant. We all can ready and write. How about a little understanding of what’s being written!
    ***************************
    (!)

    Comment by Fred Fry — Mon, Oct 16th, 2006 @ 7:53 pm

100. #80 Ok, I will try to explain it in a different way. In your argument you are talking about the wrong “functionality”. Your limitation is wrong and arbitrary. LESBIANS ARE NOT TRYING TO CONCEIVE TOGETHER. They are trying to RAISE A CHILD TOGETHER. Nature only dictates that a male and female procreate. FUNCTIONALITY A-OK in the case of male-female couple or female-female couple that uses male sperm & female egg. It doesn’t matter if lesbians can conceive because they aren’t trying to conceive together are they?

     Infertile couples have “intercourse that does not lead to pregnancy” just like gay couples. Period. Both are equally unable to have children. Both are equally deserving of the possibility to have children. Remember it’s not about TWO WOMEN trying to conceive BUT a MAN AND A WOMAN in each case. The only difference is AFTERWARDS who will raise the child. And that’s where your values come into play.

     In “nature” it is possible for male-female couples to raise a child, it is possible for male-male couples to raise a child, it is possible for female-female couples to raise a child, it is possible for a group of females to raise a child, it is possible for a group of males to raise a child, it is possible for a group of men and women to raise a child. Nature doesn’t dictate that a male and female are the only ones who can raise a child together ONLY that a male and female are needed to CONCEIVE the child. Lesbians aren’t trying to have a child with another lesbian but with a man. They are trying to RAISE a child together and there are no restrictions in nature for that.

     In both cases (hetero and homosexual couples) they may or may not be able to have a child with somebody else. They are equal. Just because you are heterosexual there is no guarantee you can have a child with another person. If you chose someone who you can’t have a child with (whether you are hetero or homo sexual) then you can’t have kids.

     And if you say that because someone cannot conceive that it means that their relationship is not equal to that kind of relationship where they can conceive then it INCLUDES infertile couples. If you can’t conceive you can’t conceive and you are not equal to someone who can.

     Comment by - — Mon, Oct 16th, 2006 @ 8:19 pm

101. I no longer answer to Abloy, because he does not want to understand. I wrote I welcome every technology/medicine progress that help mankind to live better and still get the usual comments like I welcome every technology/medicine progress that help mankind to live better.

     I answer to m@98. Modern medicine and technology, including fertility treatments, help us in live better and improve the quality of our life, and I by no means welcome the progress and technology.

     I am against that technology is used to create something that goes against nature: can a single person alone generate a child without help of technology? NO. Than it shall not be allowed fertility treatment to singles.
     Can a gay/lesbian couple generate a child after a sexual intercourse, like a heterosexual couple can? No, than it shall not be allowed fertility treatment to gay/lesbian couples.
     If nature wanted that a child is born only as result of an heterosexual relation, for the human species, we must not go against nature and allow a child to grow in a family without a mother or a father.
     This has nothing to do with technology. God has given has intelligence to cure ourselves from diseases, and we shall use it.

     Comment by Simo — Mon, Oct 16th, 2006 @ 9:29 pm

102. Ehm, read my first paragraph in comment 101 as:
     I no longer answer to Abloy, because he does not want to understand. I wrote I welcome every technology/medicine progress that help mankind to live better and still get the usual comments like “No artificially created medicines such as penicillin allowed. Clearly against “Nature”.”

     Comment by Simo — Mon, Oct 16th, 2006 @ 9:30 pm

103. “I am against that technology is used to create something that goes against nature

     Oh boy..

     Technology has been used and is used all the time to create things that “go against nature”. If giving fertility treatments to gay couples “goes against nature” then so does people getting healed from diseases or using phones and flying in aeroplanes. All of these achievemnts are products of our intellect, for bettering our daily lives, and none of them existed in our “natural primordial habitat”.

     “Can a gay/lesbian couple generate a child after a sexual intercourse, like a heterosexual couple can?”

     Can you fly? Can you heal others by only using your touch or gaze? Can you talk to a person on the other side of the planet without any devices? Can you keep warm in freezing temperatures in your birth suite?

     Is your answer to all of the above “no”? Then why should you be allowed to do all those things? Doesn’t it “go against nature” as you clearly haven’t been designed to those things? Let’s not go against nature or God, please.

     *Sigh*

     You’re partly right. I don’t understand you. But the reason is not in the limitations of my reasoning capabilites. It’s in your false logic and in the tenacity that you seem to be clinging to it.

     You’re the one who refuses to understand the illogicality of your own deducing. By saying that “man should not go against nature and use fertility treatments for gay couples” and on the next sentence saying things like “God has given intelligence to cure ourselves from disease” you’ve talked yourself into a bag.

     You don’t seem to realize that by your very own logic using medicine and modern technology is just as much “going against nature” as giving fertility treatments to gay couples. Either you’re too stubborn to admit to this fundamental flaw in your reasoning or you just really don’t get it. Either way I’m truly getting tired of pointing out the obvious to you again and again with no result. You’re right: there’s no use going over it anymore.

     Comment by Åboy — Mon, Oct 16th, 2006 @ 9:56 pm

104. Some might say that God has given us intelligence to give fertility treatments to gay couples.

     Comment by Åboy — Mon, Oct 16th, 2006 @ 10:08 pm

105. #101 How do you know what nature wants? If you do know, then that would make you a God. And I doubt God is writing here on Phil’s blog (no offense Phil .

     Anyway, it’s pretty arrogant to say you know what God wants us to do.

     Jesus didn’t turn people away, he didn’t judge. He welcomed those that others shunned. He had an open heart. Maybe you could learn from that?

     Comment by - — Mon, Oct 16th, 2006 @ 10:16 pm

106. Aboy, the point is about using technology in ethical way.

     Technology must be at the service of people, not the opposite.

     Even if technology allows us to clone a human being, we must not do it. We shall not play with life in the name of human rights.

     At the same way, I think it is a right of a child to have a father and a mother. Using fertility treatment to lesbian couples/single women would deny this right to the child.
     Therefore, I am against it.

     I think my reasoning is logical. You may not agree with it and I respect your opinion, but my reasoning is logical.

     Comment by Dario — Mon, Oct 16th, 2006 @ 10:17 pm

107. Natural selection, lets live naturally
     All those who want to live by natural selection, MUST NOT take any medicine because if their immune system is strong, they will live.
     If they get heart attack, the should not get any medical attention, because if their heart is not strong, they do not deserve to live and produce weak offsprings.
     When they fall sick, suddenly all natural selection disappears from their mind .

     Comment by mil — Mon, Oct 16th, 2006 @ 10:28 pm

108. #105

     How do I know? What a question! If nature wanted us to raise children in a family without one of the parents, or with two mothers or with two fathers we would have been different and capable of auto-procreating.
     But I see that everybody has his beliefs, and they are not going to change after a discussion in this forum…
     I never said I know what God wants us to do, did I?
     Also,show me in what I am showing a closed heart, maybe we can all learn from you our teacher.

     Comment by Simo — Mon, Oct 16th, 2006 @ 10:41 pm

109. “can a single person alone generate a child without help of technology? NO.”

     There are a lot of things a person cannot do without the help of technology.

     Now, I’m not disputing your moral stance, i.e. that lesbian couples should not raise children. You are entitled to it. It’s your reasoning that I’m at odds with. You cannot really disagree with something becaus it is “unnatural”, since modern humans do “unnatural” things practically all the time (unless you do not exclude people’s actions from the nature, in which case everything we do is natural, which makes sense, since really, we are animals).

     Comment by m — Mon, Oct 16th, 2006 @ 10:53 pm

110. #108 You said that (#59) because god made man as a result of a relation between man and woman …. etc. I guess it sounded to me like you were saying you know what God wants us to do. If I was wrong, then I certainly apologize.

     I think denying a child the possibility of a loving home is having a closed heart. But that’s just my opinion.

     Comment by - — Mon, Oct 16th, 2006 @ 11:23 pm

111. “At the same way, I think it is a right of a child to have a father and a mother. Using fertility treatment to lesbian couples/single women would deny this right to the child.
     Therefore, I am against it.”

     Dario – that’s a whole another issue than claiming something to be unnatural and some other thing natural. A completely different point. My beef was with Simo and his asinine claims on what’s natural and what’s not.

     “I think my reasoning is logical. You may not agree with it and I respect your opinion, but my reasoning is logical.”

     You might have some consistency in your claims and opinions but Simo certainly doesn’t. And if you happened to notice my resent ramblings were towards Simo’s speeches of Mother Nature and all her children.

     Simo wrote (in post 108):
     “But I see that everybody has his beliefs, and they are not going to change after a discussion in this forum”

     That’s right. All you have are your own, subjective feelings and personal beliefs. Don’t make the mistake of thinking that there’s some creature called Nature that agrees with and enforces your moral views.

     m – I’ve been trying to drive that point home. Without much success, as you can see.

     Comment by Åboy — Mon, Oct 16th, 2006 @ 11:25 pm

112. #108 and also you said (in #59) no father in a family is not good but if there are two women as parents it is even worse. In my opinion that sounds a bit closed hearted. According to you if a child has one loving parent that’s bad but it is better than a child who has two loving parents. It seems like you don’t care about whether or not the child is in a loving environment you only care that the child is in a situation that fits with your beleifs. Sounds really open hearted…

     Comment by - — Mon, Oct 16th, 2006 @ 11:50 pm

113. Å – Yes we have the same point.

     Comment by m — Tue, Oct 17th, 2006 @ 12:11 am

114. “And I doubt God is writing here on Phil’s blog (no offense Phil .”

     Wait. You mean Phil isn’t God?

     Anyway, I sort of understand how a woman would want a child under such circumstances. She might not have a choice. It probably isn’t wonderful for the child, according to many of the reasons stated here (e.g. not having a father, etc). But perhaps it’s not automatically bad in every case either.

     However, I’d be completely against it, if men were arguing for the right to adopt children conceived by such means. For example, a man could pay one of his lezbo friends to get artificially insperminated, carry the child to term, and then he’d adopt the child at birth.

     I shudder to think he might want to raise such a child as his private sex toy. And, if it were to become legal, then I’d expect to hear about an incident of this sort in the news.

     Comment by Kristian (in Espoo) — Tue, Oct 17th, 2006 @ 3:54 am

115. Fred Fry wrote:

     - Oh, and what do you mean by ‘in theory’? I would think that it is a fact that EVEN lesbians can get pregnant by having intercourse with a man.

     - There is one benefit of doing it the ‘old fashoined way.’ At least you know for sure the source of the sperm.

     This is by far my favorite comment. Sure there are posts that touch me deep inside, but I have to say, I too have wondered how getting inseminated by a random male doctor = totally normal, but getting inseminated by a random male donor = disgustingly farout.

     I guess it’s really true. Human kind knows no logic.

     Comment by giustino — Tue, Oct 17th, 2006 @ 8:31 am

116. Ok. Let’s put it this way. What I am trying to say is exactly what Dario said in his comment #106. He talks of ethics, I talk of nature.
     Technology is good when it stays within the limits of ethics.
     Is it ethical to decide that a child is born in a family with a single mother (or adopted by a family with a single father)? No! Why deprive with coscience a child of living with two parents! This means, no adoptions to singles or artificial inseminations to singles.

     Is it ethical to let a child grow in a family with two mothers or two fathers? No! How can we let with conscience a child grow in a family deprived of the figure of the father or the mother? So, no adoption /artificial insemination for gay/lesbian couples.

     Don’t you ever think of the child? Do you only think of the good of the parents?

     Comment by Simo — Tue, Oct 17th, 2006 @ 8:56 am

117. #116 So do you think all parents should be screened to be fit before becoming parents then? Is it ethical to let a child be born into a family with a mother and father that are poor and cannot support the child? Is it ethical to let a child be born into a family in which the mother or father have a history of heart disease? Is it ethical to let a child be born into family in which the mother and/or father has a history of child abuse in the family? Should we let a child be born in a military family because there is higher than average chance one of the parents will die? Just because you are a male-female couple doesn’t mean that it’s an ideal parenting situation.

     I think it is ethical to let a child grow up with two mothers or fathers. I don’t think it’s the sex that counts, it’s if the they have a good home. I might ask you, do you ever think of the child? Or do you only think about what fits in with your beleifs?

     Comment by - — Tue, Oct 17th, 2006 @ 9:33 am

118. “I too have wondered how getting inseminated by a random male doctor = totally normal, but getting inseminated by a random male donor = disgustingly farout.”

     You’ve got to be kidding..

     Um, a couple of points:
     1) Having unprotected sex with a complete stranger is dangerous
     2) Having sex with someone because you’re forced to is called abuse
     3) Having sex which goes against every fiber of your body is abuse
     4) Having sex with someone outside your partnership is cheating

     There’s a lot more to the sexual act than just insemination, you know. You can put yourself in the lesbians shoes. Assuming that you’re a straight man, how would you feel if you would be expected to take another man’s cock in the ass? If that would be the only way for you to get a child, would you do it? If not then why?

     “Technology is good when it stays within the limits of ethics.”

     Who gets to decide on the ethics? Whose values and morals will we apply and why? Why are your moral codes superiour to some others? If no harm comes to the child and a stable and safe growing environment is provided then who or what is being offended, other than your moral codes?

     You keep repeating “no no nooo, noo adoption or insemination, cause it’s wroooong, it’s soo wroong” but I see no real arguments why it’s supposed to be wrong. First you tried to use “Nature” as an argument but it of course turned out that what you were basing your views on was actually your moral codes. But I’ve got news for you: just because in your opinion something’s wrong doesn’t necessarily make it wrong.

     Comment by Åboy — Tue, Oct 17th, 2006 @ 9:42 am

119. #117, you are confusing natural conceivement, with artifical conceivement or adoption. Indeed, before giving a child in adoption to a family, there are strict checks on moral integrity of the parents, financial situation, psicological assessment, if you weren’t aware of that. If all the rigorous checks are not met, no adoption is granted.

     Nobody will ever convince me that a family without a father or a mother is a “normal” family, let alone a family with two mothers or two fathers. IT IS NOT ETHIC to wilfully and lawfully make a child grow in a family with two fathers/mothers. Don’t you ever think of this? Don’t you ever think of the child? What will he do when he sees that he, and only he, has 2 mothers! 2 fathers! It’s against ethic, nature. He may (I’m not saying will) grow up with psicological consequences, and nobody can be allowed to take this risk.

     Comment by Simo — Tue, Oct 17th, 2006 @ 10:11 am

120. #119 So you are saying as long as you are able to conceive it doesn’t matter what kind of parent you are?

     I don’t agree that it isn’t ethical to willfully and lawfully have a child raised in a family with two fathers or mothers. I do think of the child. It’s not against ethics or nature to have someone in a loving home with people that love them. As for psychological consequences there are psychological consequences to growing up in any family! Just because your parents are male and female doesn’t mean that you don’t end up screwed up. Psychological consequences are not exclusive to homosexual people raising a child.

     Comment by - — Tue, Oct 17th, 2006 @ 10:39 am

121. It is quite unlikely that people could give their consent to the parents before their birth or conception. So a child really has no choice in whether s/he wants to be born. Therefore it is the parent(s) who makes the choice. It then follows, that it’s in the interests of the parent(s), or even the 3rd party to want/have a child. Since being lesbian/gay/single/different-race does not erase this interest, it is reasonable to say some of these people would naturally want a child too.

     Judging by how many people follow their instinct to have children, it’s not surprising that these people have already tried all kind of methods to fulfill this need. I personally know that many gay and lesbians go through traditional marriage in order to have children (despise having an unfulfilling marriage.) Some would go through adoption, which can be an unnecessarily painful process for a single parent.

     As pointed out, using the biological argument against these parents is logically unjustifiable, because the same argument can be applied to unfertile heterosexual married couples and yet it’s acceptable for them to use external assistance.

     So people’s unwillingness towards single/gay adoption is probably not based on logic or biology, but more likely based on their attitude towards single/gay people.

     All the debates in this thread seem to be around a basic idea: can single/gay people provide a child better (if not the same) emotional and financial support than their heterosexual/married peers? Many opinions here imply that gay/single parents are inferior; but if that is the case, we should ask, who and what causes this inferiority? Is being single or gay would automatically cause one to be inferior in raising a child? or is the prejudice that makes their life harder and seems inferior? In a welfare society, is it society’s responsibility to assist these parents, or to deny them?

     Comment by David — Tue, Oct 17th, 2006 @ 10:41 am

122. #121 – very well said

     Comment by - — Tue, Oct 17th, 2006 @ 11:42 am

123. @Simo: Do you understand that the set of ethics you’re talking about is yours? To me it is unethical to deny the right to homosexual couples to raise achild.

     You also said this: He may (I’m not saying will) grow up with psicological consequences, and nobody can be allowed to take this risk.
     I have been thinking about this and you may have a point there, but the danger for these children is coming from people like yourself! You condemn the way this child will be raised. You talk about it with others, perhaps to your own son or daughter. If he/she attend the same school, your children will tell the child with the homosexual parents that he’s a freak, because he heard that at home! You and people like you are the only danger to the psychology of this child! Think about that…

     Comment by majava — Tue, Oct 17th, 2006 @ 11:51 am

124. *sigh christians with their morals

     Comment by Anonymous — Tue, Oct 17th, 2006 @ 1:03 pm

125. Simo please drop the nature argument already.

     Comment by m — Tue, Oct 17th, 2006 @ 2:03 pm

126. As I’m quite undecided on this issue, I’d really like to see a good scientific study about how these kids end up. Do you know of any?

     Comment by m — Tue, Oct 17th, 2006 @ 2:05 pm

127. #118:

     “1) Having unprotected sex with a complete stranger is dangerous”
     – At least I would assume that you would select the person who would be the source of the sperm. Getting from an anonymous cup donor is dangersous too. Not exactly to the mother, but moreso to the child.

     “2) Having sex with someone because you’re forced to is called abuse”
     – Nobody is forcing you to have sex. This whole issue is about want. The want to have a child. There are other options as well. How about adoption? I would think that would be more fair for a lesbian/gay couple because instead of the child being related to one one, the child is not related to either, with the child being the result of a donor sperm and egg.

     “3) Having sex which goes against every fiber of your body is abuse”
     – With this point in mind, gay and lesbians should now have no complaint about heterosexuals not accepting your lifestyle as it is against every fiber of what they find acceptable.

     4) Having sex with someone outside your partnership is cheating
     – Well yes. I think I made that point before. Sex like that results in a child related to only one member of the partnership. That is by default the normal result in a lesbian relationship. Don’t kid yourself that artificial incemination is some form of immaculate conception.

     How much of this free sperm is being donated by gay men?

     Comment by Fred Fry — Tue, Oct 17th, 2006 @ 3:20 pm

128. Fred, are you speaking for all heterosexuals or just for yourself?

     It’s one thing to lead a gay lifestyle and another to accept someone else being gay.

     A straight person is not per definition someone who doesn’t know anyone who is gay.

     I know some gay people and when I consider these issues of gay rights I think it’s about their rights, not mine.

     One other thing is that a gay person often has to deal with the prejudices of the parents. If my child one day turns out to be gay, that wouldn’t be a problem for me. What would Fred do? Dick Cheney has a gay daughter and somehow that makes him a lot more liberal in gay rights issues than what he feels about abortion, to name another issue.

     Children can always deal with the fact that their parents are gay. Usually a bigger problem is how parents deal with their kids being gay. Then it can be a big problem if “it is against every fiber of what they find acceptable”.

     Comment by Helsinkian — Tue, Oct 17th, 2006 @ 3:41 pm

129. “Getting from an anonymous cup donor is dangersous too. Not exactly to the mother, but moreso to the child.”

     How so?

     “There are other options as well. How about adoption?”

     Oh I’m absolutely certain that many gay and lesbian couples would gladly adopt, if they were allowed to. As you know, at the moment it is not allowed. No use blaming them for not adopting when it’s not even possible.

     “With this point in mind, gay and lesbians should now have no complaint about heterosexuals not accepting your lifestyle as it is against every fiber of what they find acceptable.”

     That kind of comparison is totally absurd. I think that not wanting to have sex with some type of people is not directly comparable to not accepting certain kind of people at all. Don’t you agree?

     “Don’t kid yourself that artificial incemination is some form of immaculate conception.”

     Of course it isn’t. Never said it was.

     As I said before, having sex with someone is not only about conception. Sex has many meanings and consequences, both physically and especially mentally. I ask again: Would you, as a straight man, willingly bend over and take it up the ass from another guy if that was the only option offered to you for having kids? If you don’t think it’s a nice thought then perhaps you could somehow show some empathy for lesbians?

     Getting nailed by a horny male, letting him inside you, is a totally different thing from goin to a hospital and letting a doctor artificially inseminate you with a syringe. Wouldn’t you agree?

     Comment by Åboy — Tue, Oct 17th, 2006 @ 4:13 pm

130. Helsinkian,

     I was speaking in generalities. As far as I know I do not have any lesbian friends (and I am certainly not going to earn any in this thread). I do have gay friends. I did not seek them out, nor do I avoid them. Gay people are here and their orientation really does not matter in the course of finding friends in everyday life. I did suspect that they were gay so when they told me, it was not a surprise. (Better yet, try going to a military school being known as the guy who had the gay roommate.)

     We are all victims of our own experinces. In general this is a good thing as it can be a strong base for one to build their life on, espeially if they had a stable and stuctured household that they grew up in. As an example, look at all these criminals that blame everything on their ‘troubled’ upbringing.

     I suspect that this can be a problem for gays and lesbians as their feelings of what makes them feel good and bad is in contrast with that ‘old fashioned’ upbringing. Is this why gays and lesbians talk about the right to get married? To me, this is an idiotic idea, a marriage of two wives or two husbands, but that is partly due to my image of what a marriage is.

     However, I see the value of the relationship and their desire to make it a legal union with rights and so on. I think even friends should be able to make legal unions as they desire and others will probably accept that a union can include more than two people. This is and will be a problem because those who are thinking outside the box are well outnumbered by those following a more traditional path.

     Hmm, what would I do if it turns out that my daughter declares that she is gay? Thankfully, I have many more years before that is even an issue. I would not think that it would be a problem for me, but moreso for her. From what I can tell, gays and lesbians have to deal with issues relatiing to being gay every day, and she might not like my answers on how to deal with them.

     Chances are that my daughter will not be gay. I believe that orientation is partly related to genetics and both halves of the family show nothing other than a good track-record of having traditional lives. (We can leave the discussion of what causes gayness for another day. I an just stating my opinion.)

     Comment by Fred Fry — Tue, Oct 17th, 2006 @ 4:38 pm

131. I ask again: Would you, as a straight man, willingly bend over and take it up the ass from another guy if that was the only option offered to you for having kids? If you don’t think it’s a nice thought then perhaps you could somehow show some empathy for lesbians?

     – Sorry, no empathy for Lesbians. You get to have all the sex you want without having to worry one bit about birth control. Men have the real problem in that every time they have sex there is the slight possibility of the woman telling him a couple months later that she is pregnant and she thinks its yours. Try living with that over your head.

     Getting nailed by a horny male, letting him inside you, is a totally different thing from goin to a hospital and letting a doctor artificially inseminate you with a syringe. Wouldn’t you agree?

     – I agree and have agreed throughout this whole thread. (so stop being so short-sided and …) My point is the source of the sperm. All sperm is not equal. I will admit that I am not qualified to debate that point. However, don’t you care where the sperm comes from and the type of person the donor is and what type of genetic (medical) background they mght be passing onto the kid?

     Comment by Fred Fry — Tue, Oct 17th, 2006 @ 4:53 pm

132. Does anyone know if Lesbianism is hereditary?

     If so, ther could be a spike in K.D Lang record sales in about 18-years

     Comment by Kristian (in Espoo) — Tue, Oct 17th, 2006 @ 5:03 pm

133. 1) Having unprotected sex with a complete stranger is dangerous

     We’re not talking about a complete stranger, we’re talking screened male donor – the physical equivalent of a tube.

     2) Having sex with someone because you’re forced to is called abuse

     Nobody said anything about being forced to do anything. I am just pondering the nooks and crannies of illogical human logic. If the doctor inseminated you using his very hygenic penis, would that be different?

     3) Having sex which goes against every fiber of your body is abuse

     Well remember the Melissa Etheridge case where they ‘selected’ David Crosby to be the father because he was a such a talented singer, then poor Crosby had to jack off in a cup, give his sperm to the doctor, let the doctor fertilize Etheridge’s girlfriend’s egg etc etc – all because sex with David Crosby was beyond question.

     So you go through this lengthy, risky, expensive process – just to avoid having sex with David Crosby a few times. That doesn’t make sense. David’s a good guy. I know he’s a little fat, but …

     4) Having sex with someone outside your partnership is cheating

     Not if it’s sanctioned by the partner. See, this is what I am talking about. ‘Fertilization’ is an unholy, clinical act, but ‘sex’ is a spiritual, personal one? Who decided that? If we can live in a world of single-sex parents and babies made in tubes, then certainly logic can be streched in many other ‘progressive’ ways.

     You can put yourself in the lesbians shoes. Assuming that you’re a straight man, how would you feel if you would be expected to take another man’s cock in the ass?

     My ass isn’t designed for that. It has no natural lubricants. I’d prefer we play with the anatomy at hand, not some parallel universe anatomy. Wouldn’t it stink, for example, if you had to crap out of your ear?! Now that would be horrible.

     Comment by giustino — Tue, Oct 17th, 2006 @ 5:28 pm

134. Wouldn’t it stink, for example, if you had to crap out of your ear?!

     

     Comment by Kristian (in Espoo) — Tue, Oct 17th, 2006 @ 6:13 pm

135. Duh!

     Never mind your ass is not designed for that. The emotions for you are probably pretty much the same as for a lesbian when thinking about having sex with a male. You really don’t need to imagine what it would be like if your ass self-lubricated itself.

     But I guess you’re devoid of imagination and empathy. Either that or you find the thought so unpleasant you don’t even wish to think about it. Then think how a lesbian would feel. The fact that she’s a woman and has “self-lubrication” doesn’t make it any different on emotional level.

     Comment by Åboy — Tue, Oct 17th, 2006 @ 6:25 pm

136. But I guess you’re devoid of imagination and empathy. Either that or you find the thought so unpleasant you don’t even wish to think about it. Then think how a lesbian would feel. The fact that she’s a woman and has “self-lubrication” doesn’t make it any different on emotional level.

     See you are interested in morality, ethics, and emotions. I am interested in efficiency. I am not concerning myself with moral debates because I find them to be wholly illogical and based on poorly-chosen metaphors (such as me being impregnated up my ass, which last time i checked, lacks the requisite fallopian tubes).

     My general point is that it is more efficient to suffer sex with David Crosby than have David Crosby jack off in a cup and watch his sperm advance through X number of stages before it becomes fertilized and lodged in the wall of the lesbian receiver’s self-lubricated vagine.

     Though I would like to refrian from participating in the lunacy of an ethical debate over this very logic-proof material, I must say I am glad that I was the product of natural insemination brought on by too much late night 1970s partying, rather than the end result of some guy masturbating into a cup.

     Comment by giustino — Tue, Oct 17th, 2006 @ 7:39 pm

137. First (human) nature, then normality, followed by ethics and now it’s efficiency. All ridiculous excuses. Just admit that you can’t stand homosexuals. Oh that’s not true? you are OK with them, aren’t you? As long as they do not…

     Sounds like:
     “I’m not a racist. Foreigners are welcome as long as they do not take our jobs away!”

     It’s hard for homosexuals to admit to others that they are, but apparently it’s even harder for homophobes to admit what they are. Or you just live in denial….

     Comment by majava — Tue, Oct 17th, 2006 @ 8:05 pm

138. @137, Majava: “First (human) nature, then normality, followed by ethics and now it’s efficiency. All ridiculous excuses.”

     Ethics is not a ridicolous excuse. Ethics is a branch of philosophy, which tries to distinguish what is good and what is bad. It is the only thing that avoids human beings from doing atrocities, such us human clonation or other kind of experiments.

     I am against doing artificial insemination on lesbians/gay/SINGLE parents. As you see, the fact I include single people means that it has nothing to do with homosexuality itself.

     Read my comment 106 to know the main reason of my thinking.

     Comment by Dario — Tue, Oct 17th, 2006 @ 8:32 pm

139. @86, Mil.

     “When you discuss a subject, please think about it with open mind”

     I try to do my best, I can promise you that. But it does not mean I should accept everything, right? You should respect my opinion and not accusing me of being closed-minded. If you do that, you do not respect my opinion.

     “and keep religion and culture aside, because many times these things block your mind.”

     I am laical, so I try to reason as a laical. But remember that our current values comes from a long history, and religion had a big part in it. The basic human rights, for example right to live, where do you think they come from ?

     “Think logically, thats what I want to say.”

     I could not agree more.

     “Simply opposing something just because its new and never happened before, is a sign of closed mind.”

     I am not opposing because of that. I am opposing because I believe a child has the right to have a mother and a father. Read my comment 106, please.

     “Two people of same sex, staying together and having a family is new idea, but I dont see anything bad in it, nobody is doing something wrong, kids are getting good life, whats wrong?”

     In the case of two lesbians (gays), the wrong fact is that the child will never have a father (mother) in the family to look at as a reference. If you do not get this point, it means you underestimante the importance of the figure father/mother.

     Mother and Father role are not the same and have a different impact on the child development. This is also related with the sex of the parent. It is not me saying this, but psichology.

     For example, Sigmund Freud presented the Oedipus complex, which affect the first five years of the child when he is more “connected” to the mother that to the father.

     Electra complex is the same phenomenon in girls towards their father.

     Can you tell me what would happen in case of a gay/lesbian couple? No. What is the impact on the child psichology? Nobody knows.

     I prefer not to take any risk of possible implications on the child development.

     This is my opinion, I believe I have reasons to say that and I would like to not be accused of being closed-minded if I think in this way. Thanks.

     I do not say bad things on people thinking the opposite. The majority decides the rules and make the ethics. In case of a referendum I would vote against and others in favour. I would accept the result as we are in democracy.

     Comment by Dario — Tue, Oct 17th, 2006 @ 8:51 pm

140. @125 m please stop telling me what to do.
     I have my opinions, you have yours, this is a free forum.

     Keep on thinking that it is natural and ethical to coscienciously raise a child in a gay/lesbian couple.
     I’ll think you are right only when I’ll see a child born naturally after a sexual intercourse between two men or two women.

     Comment by Simo — Tue, Oct 17th, 2006 @ 9:14 pm

141. Dario, there’s nothing wrong with ethics, as long as it is not written here to cover up some underlying anti-homo feelings.

     You write this: Can you tell me what would happen in case of a gay/lesbian couple? No. What is the impact on the child psichology? Nobody knows
     And you prefer no to take any risk. I say you prefer not to give them a chance! In this thread many have already pointed out that lots of children of heterosexual couples end up with a fucked up life because of bad parenthood. According to you that’s the “no risk” we should accept.

     Comment by majava — Tue, Oct 17th, 2006 @ 9:16 pm

142. @141, majava.

     “In this thread many have already pointed out that lots of children of heterosexual couples and up with a fucked up life because of bad parenthood. According to you that’s the “no risk” we should accept.”

     Bah. Completely wrong thinking and I tell you why.

     Bad parenthood cannot be prevented unfortunately. We can do something about it only after and we actually do, for example a judge may take away a mistreated child from a family.

     Gay/lesbians couples can be bad parents as the normal couples, but IN ADDITION to this, the psychological development of the child MAY be affected even if they are “good” people for the reasons I said in 139.

     Comment by Dario — Tue, Oct 17th, 2006 @ 9:37 pm

143. This law and the whole conversation is centered around catering to lesbians. That’s not exactly fair considering that gay males are excluded from the this opportunity to have children.

     As for the rights of single women to become moms, maybe there is something wrong with these women that men sense is wrong leaving her in this situation. In this case, the Government is giving her a shortcut and the person the ability to perpetuate the problem. Yes, having a child is a right, but being pregnant itself is not a right. That you should manage on your own.

     With that in mind, there should be no sperm banks. Instead lesbian should have to find males willing to donate for their cause.

     This whole thing is making me uneasy. Just where do you draw the lines? What about women over 40? Over 50? Funny thing, it is technology that is causing this problem. Might we be better off without artificial insemination.

     One mom was enough. I can’t imagine having to deal with two moms.

     Comment by Fred Fry — Tue, Oct 17th, 2006 @ 9:51 pm

144. Ok,
     I ask one question to everyone here opposing this thought.
     Gayism and Lesbianism is because of mutaion in genes, thats not completely known to science so far. So it can happen with anybodys child.
     God forbid, but if one of you have a gay or lesbian child, would you want them to not to have child (and you grandchild with your own blood) or you would want them to stay childless all their life because of all the psychological arguments you are putting here.

     Comment by mil — Tue, Oct 17th, 2006 @ 10:26 pm

145. Well I don’t know if you care or not but I have a friend who was raised by two mothers and one grand-mother. He turned out just fine, he knows how to chop wood, change tires and all the other *manly* stuff. He’s currently married(to a woman) with two children. The funniest part of this story is that one of my other friend (who was raised in a heterosexual family) ended up in prison after his abusive parents had screwed him up.

     Love is the only way to raise children and the sex of the parents is a non issue.

     just my two cents

     Comment by Anonymous — Tue, Oct 17th, 2006 @ 10:48 pm

146. Mil,

     Tough question. However, with technology, not only should you be able to identify the traits, you should also be able to limit undesirable traits to at most being a carrier, or correct the specific gene.

     If however it is genetic, would you want to prevent the trait from carrying forward? This is actually a hot topic in the deaf community as some treatments for newborns can restore hearing, but at the cost of destroying the deaf community.

     Comment by Fred Fry — Tue, Oct 17th, 2006 @ 11:03 pm

147. @145, that is non-sense statement! For that example you did, you could make millions of other examples where the child from a normal family grew up fine. I believe you have all other friends from etero-sexual families who are not in prison, right?

     Bahhhh…

     Comment by Dario — Tue, Oct 17th, 2006 @ 11:20 pm

148. Homosexuality has been around for such a long time that if there was a single gay gene, I think it would have been eradicated already.

     Comment by m — Wed, Oct 18th, 2006 @ 12:22 am

149. #142 Male-female parenting brings different things to the table than female-female parenting or male-male parenting. Your assumption is that same sex parenting is INFERIOR to male-female parenting just because it doesn’t offer the exact same things. What if it isn’t inferior but just different and equal?

     You worry about “possible implications for child development” for kids with same sex parents. On the flip side, I could imagine that there could be “possible implications for child development” for those people who are raised in a male-female parenting situation since they don’t get the benefits of having same sex parents.

     There are many types of societies and many ways of rearing children, even societies where children are rasied by the mothers with little or no involvement of the fathers (some tribes in Venezuela as one example also in the west indies I beleive). Or societies where fathers are away for extended periods of time (which effectively means that the kids are raised by the mother).

     You assume that gender roles are the most important factor in raising children. Are they?

     Comment by - — Wed, Oct 18th, 2006 @ 1:23 am

150. I fail to see the importantance of all this discussion. I suspect any increase in Lezbo couples, wanting children, would be relatively small. Besides, it’s always been possible for them. I’m sure we can all imagine how a turkey baster could be put into action.

     http://www.chefsresource.com/turkey-baster.html

     Nothing new. I mean, all she’s ever needed to do is jerk-off some drunken sailor who’s sprawled-out on the steps at Kamppi. And voila! Mission accomplished!

     But, I’m still against two gay men buying a child. That’s just creepy

     Comment by Kristian (in Espoo) — Wed, Oct 18th, 2006 @ 3:41 am

151. “But, I’m still against two gay men buying a child. That’s just creepy”

     That’s just because you’re a prejudiced homophobe and because you mix homosexuality with paedophilia. Rest assured, anyone adopting a child is thoroughly investigated. At the moment though gay men can’t adopt. But you should know that gay men are no more likely to be child molesters than straight men are. In fact, according to some reasearch it seems that straight men are actually far more likely to be child molesters than gay men.

     Seems quite logical actually. Afterall, there are whole cultures where middle aged men are marrying with ten year old girls.

     Comment by Åboy — Wed, Oct 18th, 2006 @ 9:46 am

152. @149, -.

     Thanks for your constructive comment, one of the few who answers with reasonable arguments without accusing of being close-minded in case of opposite opinion.

     You claim there are different types of societies where the father is away for a long time and the mother raises the children. I believe that is because of poverty and job reasons. Ask to that father whether he would like to stay 6 months away from his family to work or having the same salary near his family. Ask that to the children too. I guess you know the answer.

     About the tribes in Venezuela you mention, that is a system that guarantees survival in case of accidental deaths of the male (which is the one who hunts and brings food to the family). Anyway, the father is present anyway and lives in the same village with the mother and children.

     “You assume that gender roles are the most important factor in raising children. Are they?”

     Gender roles are extremely important in the development of a child and psichology studied it throughly. I do not know what could happen in a family with two mother/fathers and neither you know. Nobody knows. But one of the gender would miss and I think it is not a nice situation for the child anyway.

     Comment by Dario — Wed, Oct 18th, 2006 @ 10:58 am

153. “I do not know what could happen in a family with two mother/fathers and neither you know. Nobody knows.”

     Nobody knows.. Yeah, right.

     Except that women have been raising children without men troughout the history of mankind.

     Men were dragged kicking and screaming to meaningful relationships with their children as resently as in the 1970′s – by the feminist movement I should add. Before that a man who participated in his childrens lives was seen to be unmasculine, effeminate and ridiculous. Mans traditional role was only to bring the bread to the table and to discipline the children if needed.

     Comment by Åboy — Wed, Oct 18th, 2006 @ 11:05 am

154. “Mans traditional role was only to bring the bread to the table and to discipline the children if needed.”

     You have really a reductive idea of the father’s role. It is not and it was not simply that. Is that what you are going to be to your son?

     Comment by Dario — Wed, Oct 18th, 2006 @ 12:04 pm

155. #152 In modern Amerian society fathers often leave before the child wakes up and are home after the child is in bed. It’s not because of poverty. Add in activities and other stuff and how much real time do the fathers have with the kids really (this could also be applied to mothers).

     You had said the father is present in the Venezuelan village case but in a same sex couple isn’t it true there could be male role models present in the child’s life too (in the same sense that the male would be in contact with the child and not directly living with the family).

     It is possible to see what happens in same sex families because they do exist. And there are societies where women primarily raise the children with little or no contact with the fathers.

     Comment by Anonymous — Wed, Oct 18th, 2006 @ 12:06 pm

156. #154 Can you please explain what role the father typically played in a child’s life prior to the 50′s for example? What typically did a father do with his children? Or was he mainly working and the child rearing was done by the women?

     #150 do you think that two men are less capable of raising a child? Why? Is it creepy too if there is a single dad? What makes it creepy? What would they do to the child?

     Comment by - — Wed, Oct 18th, 2006 @ 12:14 pm

157. Dario, yeah, right, nobody ever heard of someone who didn’t grow up with both a mum and a dad. Did you know that there are some people whose father died before they were born or whose mother died giving birth to them? Not all of them grow up with a stepfather or a stepmother.

     Lesbians can get kids without artificial insemination by a doctor. It’s not an either you get a doctor to do it or you have to have sex with a man situation. I don’t know what the David Crosby story was about, after all there are many guys who are happy to jack off in a cup and prefer that way of inseminating a lesbian to having sex, if the only purpose of sex would be insemination. Exactly because lesbian couples raising kids are relatively many these days (I think it’s especially quite common for US lesbians to have kids) and fertility treatment in a hospital is not the only way to make it happen, it wasn’t such a hard choice for the Finnish MPs to allow even this fertility treatment. It’s not like the first ever lesbian on earth is now going to get pregnant in Finland. It was not prohibited before the new law, a case for prohibiting it for lesbians and single parents should have been made. That would have been much harder to do than deciding not to allow something that was unheard of or illegal from the very beginning. As it wasn’t illegal before, there were no grounds to make it illegal now either. After all, it’s not that much of a problem for those single moms, or lesbian moms, it’s the religious conservatives who have a problem with it and such people probably wouldn’t ask for fertility treatment anyway unless they were in holy matrimony between one man and one woman blessed by the religious authority of their preference.

     As lesbians can raise kids, gay men can do it too. In Sweden the novelist Jonas Gardell and his spouse Mark Levengood (a famous tv personality whose genetic roots are one half in Finland, one half in America) are raising two kids I think, one of them is the biological father of the first one and the other one is the biological father of the second one. If a gay couple is enough well known and idolised (as these two are), there will always be willing women to give birth to their kids and let them raise them.

     One more thing, the biological mothers can participate in raising kids whose parents in the first instance are two gay men as easily as the biological fathers can participate in raising kids who primarily grow up with two mothers. Whereas fertility treatment means sperm donors are anonymous, in these other cases where people have kids with their friends, those kids can grow up with a gay couple as their parents and then the biological partner (whose husband or wife can also participate in the process if there is one) can be something of an extra parent.

     As far as gender role models are concerned, people often have more role models when they grow up than just their mother and their father. Whereas I was brought up by my mother and my father, I would by no means want to diminish the importance of other relatives, male and female, grandparents and otherwise, who were of great importance as role models to me, gender and otherwise.

     Comment by Helsinkian — Wed, Oct 18th, 2006 @ 12:26 pm

158. To Giustino who took up the David Crosby story… Let’s assume that a lesbian friend of mine would ask me to either jack off in a cup or have sex with her, to then raise a kid with her partner. Now I know I’m a hypocrite, since I most likely won’t donate sperm, neither to a sperm bank nor to friends (not that I expect anyone to pop that question to me either), but for the sake of conversation, if I decided to donate sperm in such a situation, I think it probably would be more comfortable to jack off in a cup than to actually have a sex in such a situation. It’s quite a tricky situation to have sex with a friend, especially if you’re supposed to impregnate that friend. How will that affect my marriage? How will that affect her relationship? Such questions would come to my mind. I mean the situation would be tricky enough with the impregnation bit, adding to it the feelings that come with having sex could make it more rather than less complicated.

     Anyway, I’m really glad that lesbians can get fertility treatment in Finland. After all, it can be easier going to a doctor than to go to a friend and ask: “Hi, would you like to get me pregnant one of these days?” Whereas I probably wouldn’t donate sperm as it could complicate my life, thankfully there are guys who are willing to do that.

     Matti Vanhanen wants Finns to have more kids, I’m really glad that since he wants that he didn’t vote against the fertility treatment law. I think all three major party leaders seemed to have quite a rational approach and without the support of all three of them, the fertility treatment law might not have been passed. Kudos to them! Our leading politicians rock!

     Comment by Helsinkian — Wed, Oct 18th, 2006 @ 1:12 pm

159. That’s just because you’re a prejudiced homophobe and because you mix homosexuality with paedophilia.

     I’m not homophobic, so my comment isn’t only about gay men. Generally speaking, I get the creeps when seeing any man, alone with an infant. Simply stated, it’s a highly contrived example of misplaced priorities.

     Men were dragged kicking and screaming to meaningful relationships with their children as resently as in the 1970’s – by the feminist movement I should add. Before that a man who participated in his childrens lives was seen to be unmasculine, effeminate and ridiculous. Mans traditional role was only to bring the bread to the table and to discipline the children if needed.

     That myth’s been propagated for quite some time now. It is absolutely not true. I was there, so that’s how I know

     One might argue that communication styles were different, but that was a product of the times and not specific to fathers. Regardless, it wasn’t less meaningful. In fact, there was also less TV and other distractions, so family was the main source of entertainment. For that matter, families were more likely to stay intact; whereas it’s less likely these days.

     And the disciplining and guiding of children—especially boys—is probably the best reason for why fathers are important in their lives. Mothers are effective until boys reach a certain age, but in their teenage years, boys venture to find themselves and need someone to measure themselves against. At that stage of development, mothers are the last people on Earth who are capable of fulfilling the role.

     I realize that’s not true in every case, but I believe it makes the growing-up process much smoother in most cases. And it’s especially true if the boys have an out of control nature to begin with. Without fathers, they have a tendency to become society’s problem.

     Sure, boys can have other male role models in their lives, but we don’t really live in tribal communities these days. Our societal model is clearly nuclear and best suited for father-mother pairs…..or even father-mother-mother-mother combinations, such as in Mormonism

     Comment by Kristian (in Espoo) — Wed, Oct 18th, 2006 @ 2:08 pm

160. “And the disciplining and guiding of children—especially boys—is probably the best reason for why fathers are important in their lives. Mothers are effective until boys reach a certain age, but in their teenage years, boys venture to find themselves and need someone to measure themselves against.”

     I could not agree more.

     Comment by Dario — Wed, Oct 18th, 2006 @ 2:30 pm

161. “my comment isn’t only about gay men

     Really? Well you could’ve fooled me: “But, I’m still against two gay men buying a child. That’s just creepy” (post 150)

     “I get the creeps when seeing any man, alone with an infant.”

     Umm.. Now don’t get offended but doesn’t that tell a lot more about you than about those men?

     Is it then so – according to your logic – that a mother is the only thing which keeps men from molesting their children? Could that really be? Hmm.. Then why on earth would you want men have anything at all to do with children? Even in straight relationships?

     “That myth’s been propagated for quite some time now.”

     It’s no myth. Child rearing was considered to be an inferior duty, fit for a lowly female. Man was The Head of the family, a distant and revered authority figure for the children. Nothing overtly “fatherly” (in the sense we understand the word) in fathers those days.

     I can give you an example: When my father changed the diapers on my brother the first few times his parents happened to see it and stood by him dumbfounded and flabbergasted. Then they would start to pester him with questions like “Why on earth are you doing that?” and “Isn’t that your wifes job?” and “Do you understand how ridiculous you look?”. And back in the day (this happened in the early 70′s) their attitudes were not an exception to the rule, quite the opposite.

     Comment by Åboy — Wed, Oct 18th, 2006 @ 2:33 pm

162. “Men were dragged kicking and screaming to meaningful relationships with their children as resently as in the 1970’s – by the feminist movement I should add. Before that a man who participated in his childrens lives was seen to be unmasculine, effeminate and ridiculous. Mans traditional role was only to bring the bread to the table and to discipline the children if needed.”

     – Maybe in Europe, but as for applying to the US, that is such a load of bull. Back then there were more stay-at-home moms, so of course they would spend more time with the child. Someone has to go to work.
     – I would think that one member of a Lesbian couple would have the same problem, unless they dump the kid in daycare and both skip off
     to work in order to provide for the family.

     Comment by Fred Fry — Wed, Oct 18th, 2006 @ 3:01 pm

163. I don’t think anyone can generalize that the only way to get “right father figure” is to only allow children in man-woman relationships.

     In all relationships the masculine/feminine factors differ and so will differ the way you raise your child. You have your super alpha-males with super feminine women with “traditional values” at one end of the spectrum, but what about more “balanced” masculine/femine man-woman couples? i.e. couples where the woman can actually be more “masculine” than the man? This would make a different environment for a child to grow in. Is the child going to be f*cked up in some of those combinations?

     Same masculine and feminine traits can be seen in gay&lesbian couples. I personally don’t see any difference in having gays and lesbians raising a child vs. heterosexuals.

     Comment by Zark — Wed, Oct 18th, 2006 @ 3:30 pm

164. Fred: many couples over here put the kid at day care at the age of one. I’d think it’s easier for a lesbian couple to decide that the parent who gave birth stays at home until the kid is one and the other parent for the second year of the baby’s life than it is for a straight couple. But people have all sorts of imaginative solutions. Day care has a pretty good reputation in Finland and there is also the option of day care for half a day, which makes a half-day job possible.

     Comment by Helsinkian — Wed, Oct 18th, 2006 @ 3:40 pm

165. …according to your logic – that a mother is the only thing which keeps men from molesting their children?

     No, obviously not. But, as I stated, a man hanging out with an infant is a matter of contrived and misplaced priorities. That is even if it is within the context of a hetero family relationship. This is my opinion.

     The idea of men buying children goes a step further. Although there might not always be devient intentions, the posibility is raised significantly—regardless of whether these men are gay or straight. That is probably why most people are against it.

     It’s no myth. Child rearing was considered to be an inferior duty, fit for a lowly female. Man was The Head of the family, a distant and revered authority figure for the children. Nothing overtly “fatherly” (in the sense we understand the word) in fathers those days.

     I grew-up during this time period and can tell you that it is a myth. More specifically, I grew-up on the cusp of this time period; there existed elements of both new age types and ultra-traditional. There was no difference regarding quality of involvement with children.

     I can give you an example: When my father changed the diapers [...] (this happened in the early 70’s) their attitudes were not an exception to the rule, quite the opposite.

     You’re equating the idea of quality child rearing with a father changing diapers. They are not the same. And you state that it’s demeaning for a woman to take primary responsibility for this task. This is your opinion and perhaps the opinion of those who think like you. It is not mine.

     In my case, I spent ample amounts of time with my father and still do. We’ve built things—model airplanes, radios; then later: houses, boats, cars, etc. We have discussed all kinds of things regarding family, love relationships, friends, etc.

     Yet, I don’t think he ever changed my diapers. Neither of us suffered from this.

     For that matter, all of my family members and friends—both here and across the Atlantic—currently follow this paradigm. That is, the mother is primary caregiver when the children are young. And their quality of parenting is good, as it was in my case.

     Comment by Kristian (in Espoo) — Wed, Oct 18th, 2006 @ 3:57 pm

166. Kristian, some mothers are not as excellent caregivers as other mothers and some fathers are better caregivers than other fathers. If the mother is making a great career and the father doesn’t mind staying at home, that can’t be a case of “contrived and misplaced priorities”. That’s putting the priorities right for that family. Other families have other priorities.

     I think Housebroken by David Eddie (US author from Canada, i.e. a US citizen living in Canada) is a great book where a stay-at-home dad, who also happens to be a good writer, tells what it’s like from his point of view.

     There are general rules and then there are exceptions to those rules. Exceptional people exist.

     Comment by Helsinkian — Wed, Oct 18th, 2006 @ 4:10 pm

167. Kristian,

     I know a gay couple where one brings the money to the household and the other one is “homemaker”. If they would adopt child, and it would be male, he would have a father figure as one of them would definitely do the stuff you have done with your father. He like fast cars, sports, building hi-fi stuff etc. and I think he probably wouldn’t want to touch any diapers .

     His partner couldn’t care less about cars, hi-fi or sports but is more interested in cooking, culture etc. Would this couple really make them worse parents because they are both male? Other than idiots who will tell the child that “oh, you’re going to grow up all sick&twisted”?

     These roles will change from couple to couple, be it heterosexual or gay.

     Comment by Zark — Wed, Oct 18th, 2006 @ 4:37 pm

168. “And you state that it’s demeaning for a woman to take primary responsibility for this task.”

     I think you misinterpret me on purpose. That’s not at all what I’m saying. I’m saying that the traditional, conservative way of thinking about child rearing was to see it as something demeaning, “a womans job”. Anything that the patriarchal society hasn’t appreciated has been called “a womans job” because it has been seen as not important or challenging enough for a man to do.

     “I don’t think he ever changed my diapers. Neither of us suffered from this.”

     Maybe not. But it goes to show that even he saw the everyday caretaking of the basic needs of a child as a womans duty.

     Comment by Åboy — Wed, Oct 18th, 2006 @ 4:40 pm

169. Helsinkian—

     …that can’t be a case of “contrived and misplaced priorities”. That’s putting the priorities right for that family. Other families have other priorities.

     There are general rules and then there are exceptions to those rules. Exceptional people exist.

     Once again, you make a good point. So, perhaps I should adjust my point by saying that to equally weight the decision, in the general case, of who acts as primary caregiver, is indeed contrived and misplaced thinking. That is, in the general case, it’s not a toss up. The woman is clearly more suited.

     But, as you stated—perhaps correctly—people who are exceptions do exist. But, whether they are *exceptional* is another matter altogether

     Comment by Kristian (in Espoo) — Wed, Oct 18th, 2006 @ 4:50 pm

170. ““I don’t think he ever changed my diapers. Neither of us suffered from this.” – Maybe not. But it goes to show that even he saw the everyday caretaking of the basic needs of a child as a womans duty.”

     – First, you can’t change daipers from work, unless you have the kids there, which happens on occassion. Second, there are other issues, like getting up in the middle of the night, which I never did. It made no sense to, as the wife was breast feeding.

     So, yes, that was a woman’s duty. Does not mean that I think it is lower work or less than my contribution. Marriage is a pertnership. It does not work very well if both partners fight to do the same things. The work needs to be divided. There is a study out just yesterday that claims that Moms and Dads contribute the same amount of work to the household. Yes, Moms do more child care, but Dads do more in other areas. Nothing wrong with that, being a full-time mom is a job. I would gladly switch with her and have offered to do so. She however, is not interested in taking a job.

     Comment by Fred Fry — Wed, Oct 18th, 2006 @ 5:19 pm

171. I think you misinterpret me on purpose. That’s not at all what I’m saying.

     Åboy—I only misinterpret things on purpose if I see bonafide entertainment value in doing so

     I’m saying that the traditional, conservative way of thinking about child rearing was to see it as something demeaning, “a womans job”. Anything that the patriarchal society hasn’t appreciated has been called “a womans job” because it has been seen as not important or challenging enough for a man to do.

     Ok, fair enough. But perhaps this reasoning belies a much more natural tendency in human child rearing.

     But it goes to show that even he saw the everyday caretaking of the basic needs of a child as a womans duty.

     Yes, but only if we accept that this alleged ‘societal attitude’ influenced his actions. In my father’s case, I don’t think it holds true. I don’t think it holds true in most cases today either.

     Comment by Kristian (in Espoo) — Wed, Oct 18th, 2006 @ 5:33 pm

172. @171

     …and I say that after sitting here all day long, looking out my window, watching dozens of mothers attending to their children outside in the park and on the walking path

     Comment by Kristian (in Espoo) — Wed, Oct 18th, 2006 @ 5:38 pm

173. I know a gay couple where one brings the money to the household and the other one is “homemaker”. If they would adopt child, and it would be male, he would have a father figure as one of them would definitely do the stuff you have done with your father. He like fast cars, sports, building hi-fi stuff etc. and I think he probably wouldn’t want to touch any diapers .

     His partner couldn’t care less about cars, hi-fi or sports but is more interested in cooking, culture etc. Would this couple really make them worse parents because they are both male? Other than idiots who will tell the child that “oh, you’re going to grow up all sick&twisted”?

     Yes, that’s all fine. But my point wasn’t that boys need fathers to teach them to build stuff. Maybe I misled by recounting my own experiences.

     I don’t have a problem with gay or straight men adopting children when they reach a certain age. What should that age be? 13? 14? 16? I don’t know. Maybe it depends on the maturity of the child and his relative capability in making decisions regarding his own welfare. That’s important because such an arrangement should only be agreed-upon mutually, between prospective parent(s) and child.

     That’s very different from raising a child from birth.

     Otherwise, I don’t see harm in such a case. It might be a very positive experience at that point in a child’s life—regardless of whether the parents are gay or straight.

     Comment by Kristian (in Espoo) — Wed, Oct 18th, 2006 @ 5:52 pm

174. Dario missed my point of course there are millions of examples where a child brought up in a heterosexual family turns out fine.

     My point was that the sexes of the parents is a non-issue, it is ridicilous to say that homo- or heterosexual parents dictate how the child will turn out but obviously you refuse that idea all together because of your *moral* code

     Comment by Anonymous — Wed, Oct 18th, 2006 @ 7:23 pm

175. @174, Anonymous.

     “Dario missed my point of course there are millions of examples where a child brought up in a heterosexual family turns out fine.”

     Then you recognize that the story you wrote had absolutely nothing to do with what you wanted to say. It proves nothing, it is useless.

     “My point was that the sexes of the parents is a non-issue, it is ridicolous to say…”

     How do you know that? Any hard fact? Any study?It is just your opinion.

     I report what I wrote previously. Nobody replied to that (intentionally?).

     Mother and Father role are not the same and have a different impact on the child development. This is also related with the sex of the parent. It is not me saying this, but psichology.

     For example, Sigmund Freud presented the Oedipus complex, which affect the first five years of the child when he is more “connected” to the mother that to the father.

     Electra complex is the same phenomenon in girls towards their father.

     In case of parents of the same sex one of the two phenomenons (there are many others, these are just examples!) will not be experienced by the child. Is this positive? Is this negative? What is the effect of this?

     I am just defending the role of Father and Mother. Both of them are extremely important and I am saying that it is important to do our best to give the child the possibility to grow up in a family where both are present.

     Comment by Dario — Wed, Oct 18th, 2006 @ 8:10 pm

176. Just admit that you can’t stand homosexuals.

     My interest in this topic comes from a perspective that values efficiency. While you are all debating the ethics and morals of the situation, I am merely asking basic questions like: “why is sex holy but fertilization is clinical?” Because it seems from most posters that sex with another person is something deeply personal, spiritual, a sacred cow that should not be addressed in debate. But the actual act of fertilization is treated as a medical occurrence, like having a minor surgery. My guess is that if we can’t see or feel it, it is meaningless to us. These are my questions. I am not getting involved in the ethics debate. I am not sure what my ethics are and I certainly don’t think I am in any place to espouse a certain moral code.

     (I think it’s especially quite common for US lesbians to have kids)

     Well, that’s because many of them are former heterosexuals. I’ve known plenty of people whose parents woke up in mid-life and decided that they were closeted homosexuals. The former governor of New Jersey not withstanding.

     I have also had lesbian friends who were once straight, then became ‘lesbians’, and then became straight again. The ’causes’ of this phenomena vary. Some people just are lesbians – always have been. In third grade, you knew they were different.

     Then there are those who genuinely fear males – they were abused and cannot distinguish, for example, between sex with a male and physical abuse. So they date women. I have even known ‘fair weather lesbians’ – that is, they date women because they don’t have a lot of male interest, but when a male suitor comes a long, they ditch their girlfriends and date the male.

     Take the high-profile case of Cynthia Nixon. Currently she’s a ‘lesbian’ because she’s in a female-female partnership. But before that she was heterosexual because she was in a relationship with a man with whom she has two children. Then there’s Ani DiFranco who was a ‘lesbian icon’ before she married a man. She divorced him, but now she’s pregnant with her current producer’s child. The gay community felt betrayed. Their favorite lesbian had gone straight.

     So where does that leave us in the ethics debate? If sexuality is as fluid as our little pop culture/personal experience of lesbians show it to be, then straight mothers married to men may very well become lesbians at some point, and artificially inseminated lesbian moms may very well become (or become again) heterosexual.

     Therefore, the ethics debate is a waste of time.

     Comment by giustino — Wed, Oct 18th, 2006 @ 8:28 pm

177. “I have also had lesbian friends who were once straight, then became ‘lesbians’, and then became straight again. The ’causes’ of this phenomena vary. Some people just are lesbians – always have been. In third grade, you knew they were different.“

     That’s interesting. I remember, in about 3rd grade, there was a girl who used to invite me to look under the table to view her snatch. This was on days when she wore dresses of course. Sometimes she’d do it for a cookie; but usually for free.

     Well, surprisingly, she is now a bigtime lezbo! Sometimes it causes me to question whether I am to blame somehow…..and then I question why she never invited me into one of her lezbo love-sessions. After all, we were once so close

     Comment by Kristian (in Espoo) — Wed, Oct 18th, 2006 @ 8:46 pm

178. #175 I did reply in 149 (although it doesn’t say that).

     You say that kids of same sex couples are missing out on something. But on the flip side kids of male-female couples are missing out on something too. They might be different but it doesn’t mean one is inferior to the other.

     Comment by - — Wed, Oct 18th, 2006 @ 9:28 pm

179. Dario,

     As psychology, social sciences and neurosciences have advanced and more scientific knowledge has been gained, Freud and his religion of psychoanalysis has pretty much been discredited. Modern psychology has very little to do with Freuds musings and a lot to do with clinical and empirical evidence and reasearch.

     Freuds theories do not seem to hold and that’s no surprise, considering that he made them up from single cases and from anecdotal observations. His methods of “research” were highly unscientific. He also said that if someone was to listen to his theories they should take them as they are, no remodelling. But enough of Freud, there’s volumes of empirical evidence against him and his cult.

     giustino and buddies,

     What’s with the black and white world? Are you truly so ignorant that you’ve never heard of bisexuals?

     Comment by Åboy — Thu, Oct 19th, 2006 @ 12:40 am

180. What’s with the black and white world? Are you truly so ignorant that you’ve never heard of bisexuals?

     What I am getting at is that sexuality can change. And therefore a debate over what kind of couples can adpt or raise kids is sort of a joke, because the straight couple that adopts or is inseminated may one day dissolve, and the woman who raises the child may decide after many years of identifying as straight that she is now a lesbian.

     Can this be the last post? Please?

     Comment by giustino — Thu, Oct 19th, 2006 @ 4:24 am

181. Dario, Dario. bit thick are you. Now read my comment again and this time try to use your brains.

     You bigoted views and pseudoscience claims are the only thing you can come up with.

     As I said Homosexual parents are just as capable of raising their kids like the rest of us (of course my experience is only subjective and doesn’t count as scientific reseacrh). Show me a study that says otherwise (As you seem to claim your stance on *science* instead of your moral code) and please no Freud crap.

     As Åboy said his cult has been debunked a long time ago.

     Comment by Anonymous — Thu, Oct 19th, 2006 @ 12:52 pm

182. “Can this be the last post?”

     Why? You want to have the last word?

     Sexual orientation does not change but your sexual behaviour may vary due to many different reasons. There are three basic orientations (homosexual, bisexual, heterosexual) and it seems that “pure” heterosexuals are almost as rare as “pure” homosexuals. In other words, the vast majority of people are somewhere in between, that is bisexuals. A bisexual person can be more attracted to one sex than the other, thus living the life of a “gay” or “straight” person.

     Bisexuality can have many different ways of manifesting. It doesn’t have to mean that person is simultaneously attracted to both sexes equally (though even that kind of bisexuals exist, of course). Bisexual person can also be attracted to different sexes in different times in his or her life. When he or she acts accordingly it might seem, for an observers, that the persons sexual orientation “changes”.

     Comment by Åboy — Thu, Oct 19th, 2006 @ 2:01 pm

183. @181, “try to use your brains.”, “You bigoted views”

     Why shall I talk to you, if I receive insults in exchange?!? Who gives you the right to tell me to use my brains?!? Who tells you you are right and I am wrong and even so, who gives you the right to insult me based on my opinion?

     I am not racist, I am not against gays/lesbians, I am trying to explain my legitimate opinion to disagree with this issue.

     Comment by Dario — Thu, Oct 19th, 2006 @ 2:21 pm

184. Here’s what Alfred Kinsey found out about sexuality:
     http://www.kinseyinstitute.org/resources/ak-hhscale.html

     Comment by Åboy — Thu, Oct 19th, 2006 @ 2:29 pm

185. Aboy, “As psychology, social sciences and neurosciences have advanced and more scientific knowledge has been gained, Freud and his religion of psychoanalysis has pretty much been discredited. Modern psychology has very little to do with Freuds musings and a lot to do with clinical and empirical evidence and reasearch.”

     My point was to show an example on the fact that the sex of the gender has an influence on the psycologycal development. Modern psycology studied this as well elaborating new theories, making new studies and so on.

     Nowadays, the number of these studies are limited and research should be carried on a higher number of gay/lesbian couples with children to have more statistically valid results.

     There is no evidence on whether the child would miss something or not, even though he would miss for sure the presence of both Father and Mother role.

     You think it does not matter, and that is fine with me. We have different opinions. I appreciated the dialogue with you as it has been much more constructive than with others…

     Comment by Dario — Thu, Oct 19th, 2006 @ 2:34 pm

186. I figure that there was a possibility that the conversation would drift to include abortion, not bisexuality. But since we moved to the subject, what of the rights of the bisexual woman?

     “Sexual orientation does not change but your sexual behaviour may vary due to many different reasons. There are three basic orientations (homosexual, bisexual, heterosexual) and it seems that “pure” heterosexuals are almost as rare as “pure” homosexuals.”

     – Perhaps that is the view from where you sit where everyone around you is either gay or bisexual. Are you saying that it is so rare to be a pure homosexual? If that is the case, then the comments about sex with a men being ‘abuse’ only applies to a very small minority of lesbians.

     Oh yes, adding abortion into this equation and we have now turned pregnancy into somrthing that can be turned on and off. Just like a lightbulb. I guess that’s a victory for the feminist movement.

     Comment by Fred Fry — Thu, Oct 19th, 2006 @ 2:45 pm

187. Åboy: asexuals are also a sexual orientation, or maybe not since it’s lack of it. You can be attracted to men, women, both or neither.

     I don’t think you can automatically call people who switch their sexual orientations bisexual. It’s such a complicated case when people change their orientation. People choose anyway themselves whatever labels they want to wear.

     Isn’t it a much less controversial definition of bisexuality to classify as such someone for whom it doesn’t matter if it’s a man or a woman or even if it matters when dating, both are still generally viewed as desirable by such a person?

     People who go from straight to gay or from gay to straight can identify very strongly with their new orientation and feel that their previous orientation was a case of false consciousness. Other people can simply first date a man, then a woman and say it’s the person, not the sex that attracted them. Indeed people date or even marry for other reasons than sex in any case. Some people go for the money, to name one example.

     Comment by Helsinkian — Thu, Oct 19th, 2006 @ 2:57 pm

188. It’s not my opinion, Fred Fry. It’s what has been found in scientific literature. But you’re right in that many straight people do live under the delusion that everyone around them are straight. It’s called “heteronormativity”. Look it up.

     “the comments about sex with a men being ‘abuse’ only applies to a very small minority of lesbians”

     Umm.. No. If we’re really talking about genuine lesbians (homosexual women), that is. Bisexual women are a different issue. But even in the case of a bisexual woman I believe it’s wrong to tell her to go and have sex with a male if she’s in a commited relationship and so on. Like I’ve said earlier in this thread: having sexual intercourse has a lot more meanings and consequences than just insemination.

     But I understand why some guys are saying that lesbians and bisexual women should just go out and get impregnated by intercourse. They’re of course hoping they would get lucky.

     Comment by Åboy — Thu, Oct 19th, 2006 @ 3:05 pm

189. I don’t see how a guy having sex with a lesbian would be getting ‘lucky’.

     Certainly, they would not interact like a hetero woman and as a bonus, I can imagine the comments afterwards about how dissappointed/disgusted she is with his performance, or even that it’s guys like him that create lesbians like her. Or even

     Comment by Fred Fry — Thu, Oct 19th, 2006 @ 4:16 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a comment

• Search
  
  
  
  
  

• Advertisements
  
  
• Bloggers
  • FinnPundit
  • Hank W.
  • Kristian
  • Megsu
  • Phil
  • Tapani Pallomeri
• The Ovi
  
  
  
  
  • Pages
    • Contact
    • Press
  • Categories
    • Culture
      • Language
      • The Welfare State
      • Traditions
    • Everything
    • FI vs. Foreigners
      • Estonia
      • Foreigners in FI
      • Russia
      • Sweden
      • USA! USA!
    • Finns
      • Bad Boys, Bad Boys
    • How-to
    • Life in FI
      • Helsinki
      • Stores & Shopping
    • News
    • Ridiculous
    • Video
    • Visiting FI
  • Archives
    • August 2010
    • July 2010
    • June 2010
    • May 2010
    • March 2010
    • February 2010
    • January 2010
    • December 2009
    • November 2009
    • October 2009
    • September 2009
    • August 2009
    • July 2009
    • June 2009
    • May 2009
    • April 2009
    • March 2009
    • February 2009
    • January 2009
    • December 2008
    • November 2008
    • October 2008
    • September 2008
    • August 2008
    • July 2008
    • June 2008
    • May 2008
    • April 2008
    • January 2008
    • December 2007
    • November 2007
    • October 2007
    • September 2007
    • August 2007
    • July 2007
    • June 2007
    • May 2007
    • April 2007
    • March 2007
    • February 2007
    • January 2007
    • December 2006
    • November 2006
    • October 2006
    • September 2006
    • August 2006
    • July 2006
    • June 2006
    • May 2006
    • April 2006
    • March 2006
    • February 2006
    • January 2006
    • December 2005
    • November 2005
    • October 2005
    • September 2005
    • August 2005
    • July 2005
    • June 2005
    • May 2005
    • April 2005
    • March 2005
    • February 2005
    • January 2005
    • December 2004
    • November 2004
    • October 2004
    • September 2004
    • August 2004
    • July 2004
    • June 2004
    • May 2004
    • April 2004
    • March 2004
  • Meta:
    • Log in
    • RSS
    • Comments RSS
    • WP