On air: What's the problem with Elton becoming a parent?

I think it to be a wonderful thing to have a child brought into this world who will enjoy privilege and with our great hope use that privilege to change the world for the better.
Elton John has the resources to keep this baby out of the public eye despite the insane paparazzi who no doubt already have a bounty on this child's head.
Lastly a word to those who might be disgusted by the men involved, their sexual orientation and the circumstances of the birth. How does any of that affect you as a human being, as an individual and your life? It does not. Be happy for the couple and the baby with a promising future.

Any child needs the love of a father and a mother to grow properly and understand love properly.

I think its their private business, i guess they must have alerted the press. Good on them its a privilege to have children and I hope they honour that privilege by providing a safe, warm loving and supportive home for their boy. As to who his father or mother is that is a private matter for the parents and child and none of my business.

Sir Elton and David have shown their adeptness at keeping a low, personal profile with the public and will certainly continue such to protect their son. But whether they raise their child as I would, or you would, it is not our affair. Part of being a parent is to make the best choices for your child that reflect your sensitivities to the world and your values in life, and as new parents, Sir Elton and David deserve only our congratulations that their greatest desire to raise a child together has now been granted. Congratulations!!!

First of all congratulations to Elton John. It is a terrifically gratifying news that he'll be a Dad soon.
That said though, I remain a bit curious as to how Elton wishes to handle this situation. It's clear he's gay, but what would he want his child to grow up to be? Gay or Straight? Please am not attacking John in anyway, just expressingy my curiousity from the other side of the cultural divide (straight).
As for the name the child is been given, I'd say; wonderful. Many prominent pasts are remembered through him or is it her! Micheal Jackson to mention but least. I think that was a good idea.
Overal, I aint got a thing with that Elton, I wish you did that earlier, you'd be a much better person.

My sister is gay and currently raising a wonderfull daughter with her wife. Both parents are law enforcement officers and are able to provide a safe, secure, loving home environment for their child. Sounds like Sir Elton may be able to provide much the same home environement for his child. I say that with all the terrible places a child can be born and raised in, the home of a loving gay couple shouldn't be a place we turn our noses up at.

I'm happy for them both! They love each other, they proved to be an stable couple -something not on fashion these days- and, thus, I feel the baby would have the best. I had, since I read the news this morning- the song "Blessed" -from Elton and Bernie, of course- in my head.

I hope he'll be blessed, 'cause they deserve it.

The only point I don't know is that Elton's too old perhaps to be a father, but well, that's something time would prove...

Sir Elton (& his partner, David Furnish) have a son born to a surrogate mother in California on Christmas Day.
Three things are underquestion.
1)Should a gay couple be allowed to have a surrogate child?
Yes, of course, if all participants agree to participate.
2) Is Elton too old to become a dad?
He's 63 (I think). This means that his child will be well-grown before Elton must leave him.
3) The merits of the name Zachary (or Jacaria Jackson Levon Furnish-John).
I believe the name is too long, but heh, it's not my kid.
You've also lost me on the name. Is it Zacharia or Zachary?
In any case, let's raise a glass of celebration and let Elton and his partner, get on with the raising of Jacaria(?) Jackson Levon Furnish-John).

My only concern is that given that homosexuals cannot naturally have children, and need to use surrogates or medical procedures, why not adopt one of the many kids who need a loving home, instead of creating one of your own, that will only be the biological child of one the members of the couple. Then again, is this expected of heterosexuals? Comes down to that, is having children selfish?

Response for persecuted: No mortal being on this earth understands love properly. Proscribing particular gender pairings from parenting won't change that.

Specifically, I see no Biblical support for a statement that a child raised by two parents of the same gender will have its ability to love more compromised than anyone else. To claim that there is such support is to fall prey to the same sin as the Southern Baptist Convention, who engage in scriptural gymnastics to justify their rules against drinking alcohol (even going so far as to claim that the wine Jesus created at the Cana wedding was actually grape juice).

One high school friend during the 1960s in America had a 70 yo father when he was 16 yo. And a sister who was 4 years younger than he.

My friend's 70 yo father walked to work and when forced to retire, he was bored so he re-sided his house.

Besides, God, who some say is aeons old, had a surrogate for his child.

Also the question about him being too old to be a dad, the other partner is much younger, right?

Would people be asking that question if Hugh Hefner, 84, has a child with his soon to be 24 year old wife, who I'm sure no doubt, have found true love (ha ha), because they can do it "naturally"?

The litmus test is whether the child would be brought up in a secure home with love. If the parents are able to provide for the child till he reaches adulthood, there should not be a problem. In this case the parents have the means. Of course society is still very traditional and many eyebrows will be raised with scepticism being the major concern. But if the child is not harassed later on in school, there could be a happy outcome. Is society really open-minded to accept a gay-couple's right to bring up children? The jury is still out!

Hmm... "the facts of life" still seem to be lacking for some...

To those who hesitate to embrace a full congratulations for the parents:

Sir Elton TRIED to ADOPT a little boy suffering from AIDS in the Ukraine last year, but a gay couple is not permitted to adopt in that country. One can presume that adoption was attempted in other nations as well, but obviously to no avail. Prejudice would sooner have a child die in an orphanage than permit it a life in a family with homosexual parents. So much for wondering why a surrogate was used to create this family.

Homosexuality is not a learned condition... it is a preference genetically programmed into a person from inception. The vase majority of homosexuals are born to heterosexual couples, hence a gay couple raising a child stands "a vast majority chance" to raise a heterosexual (the genetic make-up of the child being determined by nature, not nurture.)

Congrats to Sir Elt and partner!
@ Steve, if you read the full BBC report apparently they tried to adopt a 14-year old HIV positive Ukrainian boy, but the authorities a) said he was too old and b) they weren’t considered legally married as a gay couple.
This I think is the only rather sad thing as I’m sure that little boy has missed a great chance in life. So, in the face of such prejudice, they cannot be blamed for going about it as they did.
On the age issue, while Elton is 62, his partner is 48, and how many times have heterosexual males fathered children in their sixties (and older) only be greeted with the huge round of applause? If David Furnish were a woman he may still have been able to conceive, or would not have been long past conception age, and given the fact that plenty of women in their 50s and even 60s are having treatments of this kind (which I find far more creepy), there seems no issue.
On the media circus issue, any celeb who chooses to have kids has to bear that in mind, but I think Elton has shown remarkable discretion over his private life, after all he doesn’t exactly need the publicity, and they surely have the brains to shield the child from the worst of it.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

@ Crispo – Uganda

“It's clear he's gay, but what would he want his child to grow up to be? Gay or Straight?”

He will have no say whatsoever in the matter and being the person I believe him to be would not dream of attempting to influence the child’s gender identity.
Being gay or transgender is not a lifestyle choice, it is something we are born with, the only good influence is likely to be that if the child turns out to be 100% macho-man, he will still grow up without the sort of prejudices that so many non-straights have had to and still are suffering.

Not sure why WHYS didn't approve my post, but they have children up for adoption in the UK. I realize it's a trend for celebrities to adopt from other countries, but there are children up for adoption in their own countries.

JAY you reasoning is very sound. Elton John can have kids, that is not the problem. The problem is his matrimonial status, with out going into his need for kids, if he or any one else accepts all the scriptures including the Glorious Quran then this conversation is over. However, if anyone accepts that it is a Biological fact that, in this world some Men & Women are born this way, then this conversation can go on. Mind you, I am Muslim. Call me up if you need me on air Dan/Ros.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

1. I hope they just go with "Zack" for everyday use.

2. I think age should be considered, as well as other things, in the pros and cons of having children. Advanced age can be a con, but in Elton John's case, the pros are definitely more numerous. Also, I'm not sure how old his partner is, but he looks young enough to carry on should the unthinkable happen. He just needs to do what we all do and put the safe-guards in place, choose guardians in the case of his or his partner's death, etc.

3. I don't see Elton John's being gay as a problem in rearing happy and healthy children. My ex-husband is gay and he is a wonderful father and deserves half the credit for such amazing kids (I get the other half).

@ Crispo and Linda - I admit I would not want my children to be gay just because of the added burden they would face, people can be so horrible; however, I understand I have no say and they would have a very proud mother in any case.

Elton will make a great parent. He has enough money that his age shouldn't be a factor in raising his son. He can hire a nanny and staff to see to the strenuous tasks.

His sexual orientation should have nothing to do with being a parent. At his age he should know wither he can handle it or not. And I'm sure he has some wisdom to share.

A surrogate mom for a gay couple is no different then donor semen for a lesbian couple! Both are donors. The down side for Elton is dealing with the natural mother personally, were as a lesbian couple may have the ability to choose if it's an anonymous donation or someone they know.

I'm happy for them, what a great Christmas present!

My congratulations to the proud fathers.
When I look around my neighborhood, I see a lot of people who would never be allowed to have children if you had to take a test and pass it first. In my country, there are many children who must be removed from the care of their parents due to mistreatment and neglect.

This child will certainly be well provided for and looked after by nannies. And it will probably get a sibling. Good on you, Boys!

Being gay or transgender is not a lifestyle choice, it is something we are born with
----

I have to point out incorrect things when I see them. Unless someone is born a hermaphrodite, "transgender" is a choice. If you are born with one set of genitalia, you are that sex. Taking hormones and having drastic surgeries are a choice when they are done for non life saving health based reasons.

My first thought was great, one more attention-starved celebrity egomaniac who wants a new hobby, but the comments on this blog have heartened me and caused me to reconsider my cynicism. Congratulations Elton and David! If anybody has love to offer, how can that be bad? I think it's fantastic that the comments here are overwhelmingly understanding and supportive, it says a lot about the WHYS audience. I wondered about the significance of the name "Levon" to Elton and found that he and Bernie Taupin have a high regard for Levon Helm, of The Band, invoking him in their song "Levon" and, now, for the baby. I hope they call him Levon and not Zach, but that's entirely their choice.

There are sooo many things wrong with this I wouldn't even know where to begin. First, money alone does not make one capable of raising a child to be happy and a healthy contrition to our community. (I.E. Paris Hilton). Most importantly, Having a child under any of the circumstances that plague this story (age, homosexuality, popularity) is a demonstration of the self-centered indulgence which makes for horrible parents. The thought going thought their heads can only be, "I don't care if all of these traits are adverse to an emotionally happy child (as shown by research over the past 100 years), I want one, so I will have it. I deserve it." I doubt there they really even care that such a discussion as this take place.

"...and let them get on with bringing the boy up."

Excellent idea!

Steve

The only people who choose to be gay are people who are bisexual. There is already scientific proof that there is a difference in the brain of a gay guy vs straight guy. My mother had a younger gay brother who she knew was gay when he was 7 years old. Just something different about him, long before he was making sexual choices. I have a best friend who's twin brother is gay and as kids we all knew there was something different about him. Elton also lives in Atlanta by the way. You can't raise someone gay. The child will turn out according to his genes. I wish him and his partner well. The name is too long though. I like Levon since its one of my favorite Elton songs.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

The dichotomy in some of the statements. The lady who just said, "my husband died, you can die at anytime" followed by a "he certainly has the resources". Had this lady's husband not died, would her child's life not have been better off. So why bring a child into the world when that risk is greatly increased.

@ Robyn.

You didn't read what I wrote. I said that transgenderism is a choice if you aren't a hermaphrodite. I wasn't talking about gays.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

The nuclear family, consisting of exactly mom+dad+kids, is a modern invention; the traditional model is extended family, which means lots of random aunts / uncles / cousins and so on. There's no reason two men can't raise a child, though I would advise Elton (as I would any nuclear family) that they ought to make sure the kids have lots of contact with their extended families. It's what works.

Robyn,

I am sorry, I have to call this one. I have now read some nearly 100 books on psychology, neurology, and genetics. That doesn't include library time spent reading research studies and results. However, to date, there is no known "gay gene". There is nothing identifiable. Could you please point me in the direction of where you got this "scientific proof" that you speak of. So far this is one of those "common knowledge" type things that may be common but isn't knowledge at all.

There are a lot of wild barely supportable theories. Dr. Louann Brizendine sums is up in her book "The Male Brain" on the subject, "So far, none of the specific genes that influence sexual orientation have been identified and researchers believe that the combined actions of many genetic and environmental factors will be involved." (aka,if they were never exposed to the environmental factors, they would not have chosen to be gay.") So far there are a lot of scientists who want homosexuality to be a product of nature, but every theory keeps falling flat.

Sorry but the idea revolts me, the guy is too old and will be dead before the child grows up. This is horribly unfair on the child and I do not approve.

To those saying how can a child be brought up by two fathers without a mother, or vice versa.
How do parents who divorce raise their children? A friend of mine only met his father once for 15 minuites, he's not gay or disturbed. I grew up only seeing my dad once a week. And i'm not gay. So i don't see why it makes a difference.

This is the luckiest child in existance. He's going to have everything he wants, he can choose to be famous just for being Eltons son, or he can choose not to be, like the Osbournes 3rd Child. But still have everything he wants. No doubt he can have a career in music, talented or not, be it a producer or artist. This childs future is paved with Gold.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

So, it seems the BBC (along with everybody else), seems to think that the choices of the individual when it comes to child rearing has no affect on the community as a whole. The lack of repulsion to the Elton John situation is exactly and directly related to why we have the cultural, financial, and social problems we have today. Yet we don't see the connection to a child raised in an unnatural environment being the cause of later drug use, depression, self-centeredness, divorce, and aggression. Endlessly we pay for studies and research learn such things. Then we ignore it. It's "off topic".

Even though he/ she had all the resources in the world. Nobody stops to consider that what we consider "good parenting" isn't. We feel that every person has a right to raise a child if they WANT to.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Dwight from Cleveland wrote: "We feel that every person has a right to raise a child if they WANT to."

I dare say that there are certain people who make better parents than others (although, speaking from a Christian viewpoint, there's no such thing as a good parent, because there's no such thing as a good person). But you have yet to back up your assertion that homosexuals make bad parents.

And the term "unnatural environment" is ludicrously broad. Care to explain exactly what constitutes "unnatural" in your view?

Not much of a problem for the ageing Elton John, but more of a problem for the child in his future growing up.

"unnatural environment"

I my opinion, that would be a religious household and/or community which teaches and promotes belief in and worship of a supernatural being that is in control of everything.

By definition, belief in the supernatural is "unnatural".

Believing in and worshiping "Nothing", now that's just too weird, isn't it?

So I am not at all surprised at how many religious people are psychologically damaged, in my opinion.

Jay, I did back it up. The BBC deemed it to be "off topic". I guess if i could sum up the argument, it would be to ask, "Do you feel that a mother has a specific purpose in a child's life, or are all of us just generic with different parts?" If mothers and father have no specific purpose why are there two sexes in the first place?

By Natural vs. unnatural I mean to look to nature and determine how many "gay parents" there are in other species. Natural means "in nature this behavior would not sustain." If you're Christian and believe in a supreme deity, then you have to admit that there is a reason he created the different sexes. If you are of the evolution mindset, then you have to admit that nature's ultimate goal is for a species to reproduce and sustain. Any genetic function that doesn't promote that would over time be mutated out.

Likewise, nature would dictate that a young and healthy mother is even more important to a child then a father. AS mother stops being able to produce after mid life. Men can produce for their duration. Altough desire to do so in most "natural" settings is reduced.

Again, I apologize i am barred from citing books and research to back up my data. One good study was done by Sun at Ohio State Mansfield campus. A brilliant research in my opinion. A well laid out experiment.

One last question on this topic. What kind of society do we want to live in? What kind of parents are going to best be suited for producing this type of culture?

I'm not sure I have a problem with it or not. Homosexuality laws have roared ahead so quickly, and Homosexuality has been taboo for well over 5 Millenia, yet people have relaxed their views about it over the last 50 years (and those 50 years have flown by).. So I have to ask - is it any wonder that it's left a lot of people confused and at odds with what is happening in the world today?
I think the media has shrunk the world, and I also think that people are more relaxed about a lot of religious and social dogma, because we are either (1) evolving into a more peaceful world? (uh Nope! I don't think so), (2) because allowing something to happen is easier than keeping laws in place against it? or (3) there is also the question of majority rule? But who knows? Maybe it's my age and upbringing because I sit on the fence with this.
As individuals I am at peace with them. As a group I find myself being worried that we have an enigma in our midst that we allow yet makes no sense. Does this mean that in another 40 years we further open the floodgates to all sorts of other taboos that society has set up to protect itself with. Will we be celebrating and honoring child molestors and terrorists?? (please note this is just to make a point) So, I apologise to all the very Very modern-minded and socially futuristic people out there, who think this is fine, because I'm not sure I do. I think Elton and his partner as separate people would be brilliant parents, but to gether they still have the stigma of homosexuality hanging above them that lots of people do not accept, so bringing up a young boy in that environment hold strong influencers for the kid. Sorry.. OK - got me boxing gloves on now to take all comers...

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

i don't think it's a problem, i think it would be fine if they would just do something about their hair.

A question to the religous folks who say being gay is "Unnatural"

Given that we where made in Gods image, does that mean that God has bi-sexual tendancies?

A child is a miracle and blessing to anyone's life.
One of the most strongest bond any human (and animal) experiences is the maternal bond. The largest part of a healthy emotional and psychological upbringing comes from the child's relationship with the mother (without mothers, Freud would be out of a job). A child with same-sex parents, especially male-male parents, is starting life at a disasvantage which no material wealth can compensate for.

@Cabe UK (put those gloves down)
I think the modern thinking (I'm not modern or thinking), is to accept whatever consenting adults agree to. So while I don't see child molestation or terrorism falling into that category, we are seeing things like prostitution, euthenasia, (maybe also that cannibalism scenario) become more mainstream. I think it's because we are acting and being treated as individuals with individual rights, and we are not being considered in the context of a society (which I believe is what Dwight also brought up).

I agree Ibrahim - too much too soon, we are just not in control of anything anymore! - I think we have it too easy and have all gone too soft, nothing means anything anymore. All the wrong things are acceptable and tolerated so that people are free to partake of them without redress, and the things we should be tolerating - like goodwill to mankind, has been put in the bin.
@49 Multipack - it's a very good point but I think that God and all his heavenly bodies, the Angels etc, are all supposed to be 'asexual' (nothing sexual about them). I'm not religious but in the 'scheme of things' it just goes to show how far we've strayed !
:o(

(Apparently my last post was too long. I didn't see "too long" listed in the House Rules, but that's okay. I'll attempt a shortened version.)

Dwight wrote: If you're Christian and believe in a supreme deity, then you have to admit that there is a reason he created the different sexes.

And you have to admit that we cannot be sure what those reasons are. It's a huge leap from "God created two genders for some purpose" to "a child can't be raised properly in a house with two parents of the same gender."

If you are of the evolution mindset, then you have to admit that nature's ultimate goal is for a species to reproduce and sustain.

Nonsense. If I am a theistic evolutionist, then nature's goal reduces to God's goal, which returns us to point A. If I am a non-theistic evolutionist, then I don't have to assume that nature has a goal at all.

"Do you feel that a mother has a specific purpose in a child's life, or are all of us just generic with different parts?"

Families exist within complex social webs. A theist might therefore say every adult in a child's life has some specific purpose, and that nobody is generic, regardless of their "parts."

You seem to be saying there are specific qualities possessed by all women and no men, and others vice versa. What are they? By not having a woman in his life who takes on the name "mother," what specifically will this boy be deprived of?

The `problem` is that the kid is too lucky and you are very much jelaous.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Jay, I apologize. Answering your question and citing the sources of the research that supports "why Elton John and gay parents make bad parents" is considered "off topic". As well is directly quoting from the bible the references that would easily apply to "God's Position" on homosexual parents. I have tried twice.

Dwight, I take it from your comments that you do not approve of the homosexual and his expectation of acceptance.I assume that the hours and hours you have spent researching for evidence to back up your convictions.

The truth of the matter, Dwight, lies in the fact that only a homosexual knows what makes him a homosexual. If a homosexual says that it comes from within, that is something that he was born with, then no amount of research will disprove this. It is wrong to assume that his affirmation is a willful lie to cover up the guilt of his sinful "choices".


Religious belief, however, is LEARNED, otherwise we would all be born with the same faith. Learned attitudes are not natural and certainly not divinely ordained.

David and Elton have every right to offer not only each other love and support, but could also give a child a stable, loving home. I have no idea if one of them is the biological father.

Would anyone suggest that a widower should have his children removed from him in the event of his wife's demise, under the pretext that it is unnatural for a child to grow up without two parents?

There is no such things as a normal family. Each family is unique, which is probably one of the many reasons we all grow up as unique individuals.

Being homosexual does not make you immoral. A perfectly hetreosexual person can be completely immoral. A moral person is not defined by his sexuality. A happy person is not defined by his sexuality, and a person's sexuality is not defined by his parents.

Elton and David can be expected to be as successful as any other wealthy and well-known couple in raising their child. They are just as likely to raise a well-adjusted, moral and loving individual as any other couple or, for that matter, any other single parent. Not all things are a matter of choice, after all.

I just think the whole matter is disgusting. If a Homo partnership was meant to produce children it would be possible. To borrow other peoples' bodies, to satisfy an selfish wish, is to stoop to the lowest form of possible behavior.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

@Dwight: That's okay - one of my resolutions in the new year is to cut back on the web and on online conversations. So it's probably just as well :)

But I will say this, in defense of the BBC-WHYS moderators: I've had several posts in this thread removed for various reasons. Doesn't mean they're persecuting me for my POV. So your implicit protestations of anti-religious bias are falling on somewhat skeptical ears.

Jay,

This is where the lack of information further degrades conversations. There was nothing "implicit" or protestant about my posts. You asked where I got my infomation. I attempted cite it. When my citations were rejected, I was simply answering your question in a way that I figured the BBC would relate it. So i made sure I referenced "Elton John" being a "parent" (which was the topic of the main post) as well as the reference to "God" (which was a common thread of some of the responses they did publish).

There is no rational sense as to what is published. Just as your response to me had nothing to do with Elton John having a child. I assume I am missing information everytime I see somebody broke "House rules". I am a bit suspicous when they go to "Further moderation" and then get rejected. That happened in the case of both of the rejected posts.

Bobbgooduk,

I didn't see your response. I hope I am allowed to respond. First, I do not have a judgment on homosexuality as far as moral or ethics goes. As a matter of fact, I live with a gay man. He is my brother. I love him. That said, part of my “research” on this topic comes from watching the environment and social/ parental behaviors that produce a gay man. The abuse between parents, the separations, the father who always worked, and the self victimizing mother that made up our family all contributed. I know what my brother was exposed to, I know what path lead him to emotional attachments to men. They are as real and as profound as those that leads us to become straight. 4 years my elder, and alive for the most tramatic years of our family, he grew up in the same house, but not in the same enviornment.

I can not debate with somebody who refuses fact for “internal knowledge”. So convincing you that there are no genes related to being gay (and if there was they would have been bread out), would be akin to trying to convince your British forefathers that the world was a globe shape and that no ship had ever fallen off the edge. You already said you were not going to be convinced. The scary part is I can here a child molester using the same argument. “I don’t know what drives me to do it, its not my fault.”

I will say this. What has been proven is that an infant starts learning the moment it leaves the womb. Being gay is a “learned” attribute. One deep rooted in the subconscious. Much like being depressed, anxiety, borderline, OCD, and an entire spectrum of insecurity dysfunctions. A male child who has an absent masculine male or a maternal female figure has a greatly increased chance of becoming homosexual. This mainly has to do with the reward felt when receiving that limited attention from any male figure.

Thus, emotionally and psychologically it is imperative for feeling of completeness to have a mother figure and a father figure in a child’s parental arrangement. Elton and his partner do not make a complete functional parental entity.

Ok, Let’s cut to the chase, Sir Elton can, and does do what the hell he wants.