Ruth Davidson pregnant.

[Zoon]

TartanPaint said:

Not all news is bad news.

Congrats to them both. I like Ruth.

But hardly important news to the nation?

[crofty1984]

wc98 said:

Zod said:

I think it's great for them. Just hope it doesn't distract her from her job as one of the few sane people in a prominent position in the Tory Party.

this ^. i would add one of the few sane people involved in politics in general these days.

Indeed!

[Ali Chappussy]

Quorn eater!

[TartanPaint]

Zoon said:

TartanPaint said:

Not all news is bad news.

Congrats to them both. I like Ruth.

But hardly important news to the nation?

What, that the Scottish leader of a major political party might be taking extended time off work in the near future? I'd say that's news.

[Shakermaker]

Zoon said:

TartanPaint said:

Not all news is bad news.

Congrats to them both. I like Ruth.

But hardly important news to the nation?

Its still news. We also got told when Beyonce was pregnant, and that Channing Tatum and his wife have split up. I learned all of this on the BBC website.

Not every piece of news is important to everyone that watches the news.

[Willy Nilly]

esxste said:

Willy Nilly said:

If one is a same sex relationship, how do you decide which one will bare/father the child and how do you decide who supplies the extra ingredient?

I think if you imagined yourself in a similar situation, you'd come up with the very obvious answer to your question.

It's not an obvious answer. In a "conventional" relationship, there is no discussions to be had because the roles of father and mother are not negotiable. In a same sex relationship there are either 2 "fathers" or 2 "mothers", but there an only ever be one father and one mother, no matter how right on the couple is.

[popeyewhite]

esxste said:

Willy Nilly said:

If one is a same sex relationship, how do you decide which one will bare/father the child and how do you decide who supplies the extra ingredient?

I think if you imagined yourself in a similar situation, you'd come up with the very obvious answer to your question.

Hope you're not confirming stereotypical gender roles?

[Mothersruin]

Hope it works for them and the child - she's a smart cookie and pretty much the only Tory at the moment that seems to have a clue of what's going on.

[Shakermaker]

Willy Nilly said:

esxste said:

Willy Nilly said:

If one is a same sex relationship, how do you decide which one will bare/father the child and how do you decide who supplies the extra ingredient?

I think if you imagined yourself in a similar situation, you'd come up with the very obvious answer to your question.

It's not an obvious answer. In a "conventional" relationship, there is no discussions to be had because the roles of father and mother are not negotiable. In a same sex relationship there are either 2 "fathers" or 2 "mothers", but there an only ever be one father and one mother, no matter how right on the couple is.

What are you on about?

What are the "roles" of the father and the mother?

Sure, a mother has the ability to feed their child naturally, which a father does not, but what is the role of a father that you think is so important?

As a new dad I'm keen to understand what I might be doing wrong you see. As much as I can tell, my role is: Take care of my daughter and tend to her needs. That happens to also be my wife's role. Our roles as a married couple remain the same - we continue take care of each other as we need it, and my role as a person sees that I look after myself too.

Two mums also surely better than just one mum and an absent dad as well?

[Hayek]

popeyewhite said:

esxste said:

Willy Nilly said:

If one is a same sex relationship, how do you decide which one will bare/father the child and how do you decide who supplies the extra ingredient?

I think if you imagined yourself in a similar situation, you'd come up with the very obvious answer to your question.

Hope you're not confirming stereotypical gender roles?

Why do you hope that?

[Zoon]

Shakermaker said:

Two mums also surely better than just one mum and an absent dad as well?

But on balance probably not as good as a mum and dad, as nature intended.

[JuniorD]

Zoon said:

Shakermaker said:

Two mums also surely better than just one mum and an absent dad as well?

But on balance probably not as good as a mum and dad, as nature intended.

But did nature intend daddy-o to stick around after he shot his bolt at T minus 10 months?

[esxste]

Willy Nilly said:

It's not an obvious answer. In a "conventional" relationship, there is no discussions to be had because the roles of father and mother are not negotiable. In a same sex relationship there are either 2 "fathers" or 2 "mothers", but there an only ever be one father and one mother, no matter how right on the couple is.

Not an "obvious" answer, yet you mention the answer in the very next sentence.

And I'd imagine every couple has the conversation about kids... for some couples there is a little more to discuss.

As for the non-negotiable roles... does this extend to infertile "conventional" couples too?

[TartanPaint]

Zoon said:

Shakermaker said:

Two mums also surely better than just one mum and an absent dad as well?

But on balance probably not as good as a mum and dad, as nature intended.

You do know it's 2018, right? You haven't set your watch to 1918 by mistake, have you?

[Shakermaker]

Zoon said:

Shakermaker said:

Two mums also surely better than just one mum and an absent dad as well?

But on balance probably not as good as a mum and dad, as nature intended.

That isn't a nature thing, that's more of a society thing. Nature needs both a man and a woman to be involved to make a baby. That's all. Most species the man doesn't really get involved after that.

yes, the overwhelming majority of relationships where children are born and raised are between a man and a woman, but that doesn't mean that two women or two men cannot do an equally good job of raising a child.

[esxste]

Zoon said:

But on balance probably not as good as a mum and dad, as nature intended.

Firstly; nature has no intentions. To presume it has intentions presumes intelligent design; and there is plenty of evidence against intelligent design.

What ever works is usually good enough for nature.

Secondly, studies on the matter suggest that there is no discernible difference in the development of children raised by same sex parents.

[andy_s]

esxste said:

What ever works is usually good enough for nature.

Wholeheartedly agree.

[IrateNinja]

TartanPaint said:

You do know it's 2018, right? You haven't set your watch to 1918 by mistake, have you?

Good grief - this. 99% of the feelings on this thread are positive message congratulating new parents to be. We really do not need this 'as nature intended' bks polluting it.

[Hayek]

IrateNinja said:

TartanPaint said:

You do know it's 2018, right? You haven't set your watch to 1918 by mistake, have you?

Good grief - this. 99% of the feelings on this thread are positive message congratulating new parents to be. We really do not need this 'as nature intended' bks polluting it.

Why not explain why that POV is wrong rather than just being intolerent? You won't win anyone over like that...

[esxste]

Hayek said:

Why not explain why that POV is wrong rather than just being intolerent? You won't win anyone over like that...

Because it is 2018, and not 1918.

Same sex relationships are not a new phenomenon, and its no longer ignorance that drives people to post things like "as nature intended".

It's willful bigotry, and its quite hypocritical for the intolerant to demand others be tolerant of their intolerance.