Kid issue

Last week, I was sat in the waiting room at the doctor's surgery, and sat opposite me was a woman holding her baby. The baby was only a few months old but at the point where she was very vocal, and very aware of her surroundings. As babies do, she kept staring at me. I'm never quite sure whether to look back, but as soon as I did, she started smiling at me, and every time I looked back, she smiled at me and giggled.

A few days later, I was round at my auntie's for a few drinks, and her new "man" (not sure you can call a 50 year old a "boyfriend") was there with his daughter, and her 16 month old son. When he eventually woke up from his nap, he was bounding around everywhere. Still unsteady on his feet, it was probably the cutest thing ever. His speech is quite advanced for his age, and he points at things and says what it is, but his favourite word is "duck" and when he was playing around his paddling pool, he kept pointing at his rubber ducks and shouting DUCK at the top of his voice. Having played a few games of hide and seek with my mum he turned his attention to me and decided he wanted to show me his ducks! So cute!

These two experiences in particular (and a couple of others out and about) have left me feeling oddly broody, and the subject of children has been on my mind quite a lot. But as a gay man, many would assume that children just isn't an option. The aforementioned auntie had said at one point to my mum "the only disappointment lies in that there won't be any grandchildren". Her assumption reflects that of many people (especially of older generations), and I pulled her up on it. Why would there be no children? Why, just because I'm gay, does that mean I don't want to be a father?

Truth be told, being a dad is a route I've always wanted my life to go down, one day. Until not long ago I envisaged this with the "traditional" wife and kids scenario, before I finally considered myself gay. However, my opinions on this were changed. Just because I'm gay, it doesn't at all mean I can't one day fulfil this dream, and if you're in a loving, long-term relationship and you see this lasting, children become a real option. Adoption and surrogacy are really the only ways to do this. But with homosexuality still, in some circles, seen as "taboo", there's a view, amongst both straight and gay people, that these are harder to achieve than for straight couples who perhaps, for whatever reason, can't have children of their own.

Whether this is true or not is debatable. Last week, Ian "H" Watkins (West End star and former Steps singer) and his long-term partner announced they were having a child by means of a surrogate. When talking about the process on ITV's This Morning, they said they had absolutely no more trouble than a straight couple would going through the same process, and that the stereotypes that exist around this are very much untrue.

I think this is absolutely fantastic news, and congratulations to them. Another famous gay couple, Elton John and David Furnish, went down the same route and Christmas last year welcomed their son Zachary into the family. More and more same-sex couples are having children, by adoption and surrogacy, helping to dampen the taboo surrounding the concept. With this controversy comes major considerations for the couple wishing to have the children. What are the social implications for both the child and parents for having this "unconventional" family? Will the child get bullied at school? How will people react? Personally, I think it would seem public opinion is softening to this considerably. For example, the characters Christian and Syed in Eastenders are among the soap's most popular characters, and their recent adoption storyline (though how it pans out is yet to be seen, with Syed's second thoughts) was very well-received.

I've really only considered having children of my own in a gay relationship in the last 9 months or so. Ideally, the way I'd want to do it is to go down the gestational surrogacy route, as have Ian Watkins and his partner. This is done using an egg donor, IVF to fertilise the egg with one of the couple's sperm, and a separate surrogate. If my life partner has a sister, in an ideal world her, or my own sister, would donate an egg. In the event that his sister would provide the egg, that would be fertilised by my sperm, and if it were my sister's egg, that would be fertilised using his sperm. This way, our children would have no genetic tie to the surrogate, and would be as genetically close to both of us as possible. I'd always be open to adoption of course, but the idea of having a baby that is truly ours is a very happy and comforting thought.

Of course this is alllll hypothetical. Who knows what the future will bring, but this is an ideal situation for me. I just hope that by the time I'm in a position to have children, social acceptance is much higher and me and my partner run into as few issues with the system and social stereotypes as possible.


(Seriously my blog is so random. I'm not sure I know of anyone else who can go from celebrity gossip, to alcoholism, to gay couples having children in one blog! Make sure you subscribe and check back for updates on my wonderfully weird and random thoughts!)

Amy Winehouse

Well I hardly have to fill my few readers in on the news that Amy Winehouse was tragically found dead in her Camden flat last Saturday. You may wonder why it's taken me a while to write on this, especially considering my previous post about her alcohol and substance addiction. Truth is I've just not had the time!

Now some may feel my comments in said post were a little harsh, but I by no means take them back. Amy Winehouse was an amazing talent, and her contribution to music will live on for years to come. But unfortunately, as is the case with the majority of addicts and alcoholics who live in the public eye, and upon whom the illness has taken an unstoppable hold, her huge talent was overshadowed by the spectacle of a young woman slowly destroying herself for all to see. George Best springs to mind. Unfortunately her behaviour, for me, represented everything I saw my dad go through six years ago when his alcoholism finally got the better of him, and, three instances of liver failure later, killed him.

Now realistically, I don't think anyone can call this "unexpected". It was certainly surprising, and we hoped this day would never come, but having watched her spiral out of control last month leading up to her disastrous performance in Serbia (in a period when she was supposedly getting back on track), I'm afraid to say I think this was only a matter of time. It's just an absolute tragedy that such a talent, a star who shone so brightly as she burst onto the music scene all those years ago with her sassy personality, powerhouse vocals and unique style, died so young.

Now I won't jump onto the bandwagon, as tends to happen when a star dies. Look at the death of Michael Jackson, for example. How many of those "fans" who contributed to the huge (and deserved) public outpour of grief, were, a couple of years before, branding him a pervert and paedophile, amongst other things. Some had all but forgotten the amazing music he had produced in his life but were so quick to jump to his defense when he died. Unfortunately, this fakery is seen all too often when a celebrity dies, and it just goes to show how fickle the media (and the public who are absorbed by it) are.

I think it's so sad that such a brilliant talent has gone to waste. Unfortunately, as is the case with many of those who suffer the mental illness that is addiction, her demons had too strong a hold on her. If anything good can come out of this, I hope it highlights the huge issue that is addiction and encourages more addicts and alcoholics to fight it, just as Russel Brand did, and get their lives back on track.

Rest in peace Amy, your contribution to British music will never be forgotten.


(I had hoped to write two posts today, but the next shall wait until tomorrow since I've slightly ran out of time. So you've got a post on gay couples having children to look forward to! Check back for updates x)

So I just won £160 million....

....Is what some lucky fucker is waking up to this morning. Yep, someone in the UK has won the full EuroMillions jackpot of over £160 million. It's not yet known whether it is an individual or a syndicate, or even where they're from, but it breaks the record of the biggest win this country has ever seen. If it is an individual, they'll shoot up to 430th on the Sunday Times rich list for this year.

Now obviously I'm somewhat jealous (and it has me thinking, WHY don't I play this thing?!). But it also has me thinking, if I were to win £161 million, what the hell would I do with it? I'd obviously have to find somewhere to put it.. can a normal bank account even hold this much money?!

First of all, I'd learn to drive, and be able to buy/insure a decent first car. I wouldn't go mad with it and buy a sports car or something ridiculous, I'd keep it fairly humble with a Mini Cooper S or something like that, nice to drive, fairly practical (I guess). I probably wouldn't buy another car for quite a few years.

I'd then immediate pay off my student loan.. and look forward to a life without debt (woopa!). I'd buy a flat down in London so I wouldn't have to rent when I move next year. Probably not a house, simply because I have an image of my first HOUSE will be with a partner, I'd get lonely in one alone. The flat again wouldn't be some state of the art multi-million pound apartment, it'd be fairly normal. Why would I need something like that right now? The lifestyle doesn't appeal to me at this age. I imagine it to be fairly shallow and again, lonely. I wouldn't need any more of that right now! I'd also pay for private healthcare. I'd have cosmetic surgery, though nothing image-changing, no liposuction, implants or whatever. There's probably literally only one person who knows what I'd have done from a self-conscious point of view but even then I'm not sure they wouldn't be surprised!

I would then spend as much as I'd need to getting the best musical training money can buy in London. Though I could afford to start a postgrad in opera at the Royal Academy straight away, my plan wouldn't change simply because I'm not good enough to start straight away. I'd still spend the time training and probably at a job all the while because why would I stop just because I have money? Money runs out eventually!

Then the selfless side of it. I'd pay for my mum's house to be totally done up and finished, finally. I'd probably pay my sister through university if she still wanted to be a paramedic. A good couple of million would go to charities, probably a couple of the leading cancer charities and poverty charities, ones which are fairly close to my heart. I'd then probably pay for the people closest to me and who mean the most to me to go on holiday to wherever they want because they'd probably deserve a break. You know who you are.

I'd eventually want to live in a nice big house (but no bigger than I needed), with a very big garden, big rooms (one of which would have a gorgeous grand piano and not much else!), my own recording studio, all sorts of cool stuff like that. But that's the dream part of it! I still wouldn't do that until I was settled in my life.

And, immediately, that's realistically about it. I wouldn't splash out on ridiculous stuff I don't need simply because I'm not that sort of person and know the value of money. Eventually of course there'd be new cars, new houses, general living. But what, the above would amount to around £3/4 million, maximum? I'd be comfortable for life but never would I stop working! I'd be able to provide security for my children and family and myself and I'd make sure I'd save as much as possible. I'd never spend for the sake of spending, however fun it looks.

But then I also got wondering about the complications of having so much money. I'd remain an anonymous winner, and probably wouldn't tell many people I know for the simple reason of I don't want people sponging off me. It'd be funny to see how many people would suddenly be your "best friend" simply because you have money.

Then what about when I do buy that first or even "forever" house with a partner? We could afford to live somewhere really quite nice, but I couldn't expect them to pay an even half in if we're buying a, say, £600,000 house or more because if they don't earn that, how can they? But then it'd be mostly my house, so how does that work? The same applies for my wedding. Would I have to pay for the whole thing simply because I can? Perhaps this is to a lesser degree since it's far less expensive than a house. But would I have to be the main provider just because I'd won so much money, even though I'd still be working a normal salary job as I would be even if I hadn't won? I don't believe in spoiling people so that wouldn't happen, but would there be an expectation for that?

This is why I wouldn't tell many people. I'd want my partner to love me for me and not my money, I'd want my friends to be my friends for me and not my money, and I wouldn't want to be a target for fraud or burglary. I mean, with any luck I'd still have the friends and people who love me I have now and I think a couple of them really will stick by me forever. But can you imagine the huge complications having so much money would bring? I'm not sure how much easier life would get because of the problems having so much money brings. I want to be well-off, but £160 million well-off? Who knows..

Of course this is all ridiculous and hypothetical and I'll likely never be in that position. But I don't suppose that bothers me so much though I'd like the security. As long as I don't die alone and poor I'll be happy!

Oh and one last thing, congratulations to all the Bangor University students graduating this week. Well done all you thoroughly deserve it! :D