Blaming your staff makes you the Twit, not them

Macca says:

11:38am | 12/08/10

I had a look at the preference Website the other day. I found it quite funny that the Australian Democrats and the Australian Communist Party both list each other last in their preferences

James1 says:

11:51am | 12/08/10

I just love the Communist Party website - it is so sad and depressing that it actually made me laugh.

Macca says:

12:04pm | 12/08/10

@James, haha, I just checked it out, It looks like it was designed by a year 9 student in 1996. I think it is the worse website I have seen since Geocities

James1 says:

12:14pm | 12/08/10

Macca,

I love their current fundraiser.  They are looking for money to buy a new printer.  I almost donated one to them when I saw that.  Then I remembered that they are communists.

Macca says:

12:40pm | 12/08/10

ahahahahahah

Biteme says:

12:18pm | 12/08/10

Macca, you really think the average Australian agrees with same sex couples adopting children? I would say this woman has come under political pressure to apologise. This only further stirs the emotions of average Australians. Most Australians don’t agree with it. And if they did at least one of major political parties would put it into law. And as we see the experiences of other countries that have allowed this law it will fall further and further into extinction here.

TJ says:

12:26pm | 12/08/10

why would they biteme when the minorities are the ones with the loudest and ugliest protests?

Steely Dan says:

12:42pm | 12/08/10

@ Biteme

“Macca, you really think the average Australian agrees with same sex couples adopting children?”
I think they do, actually.  This is a discrimination issue, and I think Australians are smart enough to realise that a lack of evidence showing a negative impact on children raised by same-sex parents is insufficient to keep discrimination in the books. 

“And as we see the experiences of other countries that have allowed this law it will fall further and further into extinction here.”
That’s an interesting prediction.  But it’s not backed by observation.

Macca says:

12:43pm | 12/08/10

@Biteme, No, the average Australian probably does not think Same-sex couples should be able to adopt, but comparing it to Child Abuse is a gross overstatement and completely trivialises her own argument. She only does her cause harm

PaulB says:

05:41pm | 12/08/10

If she doesn’t think that same-sex couples should be able to adopt, all she had to say was just that and explain sensibly why.  If the view is based on a religiously influenced belief then say that too.  She is entitled to an opinion and to put that opinion sensibly in the voting marketplace, but what she “Tweeted” was just ignorant abuse..

ReAlistic says:

11:56am | 12/08/10

I think you’re right. This is nothing more that peer pressure at it’s worst. These people should spend some time watching Richard Attenborough documentaries just to get a feel for how ‘natural’ this all is (not).

Glen says:

12:02pm | 12/08/10

Vote for Wendy then…

Two Mummies says:

12:13pm | 12/08/10

“At that to the increased participation in casual sex, group sex and I think we can do better for our kids.”

In that case why doesn’t Family First advocate for the abolition of Aussie Rules footballers?????

She is a homophobe and so are you. Try reading some literature published in peer-reviewed journals rather than newspapers and you will find NOTHING that says gay parents or partners are worse than heterosexuals.

Tim says:

12:29pm | 12/08/10

Two Mummies,
try reading some research that isn’t being funded and directed by the gay lobby and you might get a better picture.

Steely Dan says:

12:45pm | 12/08/10

@ BeReal

‘Deathblow to Marriage’?!? How is anybody’s failed marriage hurting mine or yours?

Lazy Jesus says:

01:05pm | 12/08/10

A Phobia is a fear, people get labelled with that tag a lot but you don’t know if someone is afraid of homosexuals or just plain doesn’t like them (for whatever reasons they have). We need a new word.

The Scarlet Pimpernel says:

03:46pm | 12/08/10

TwoMummies

‘‘you will find NOTHING that says gay parents or partners are worse than heterosexuals’’ 

That is because there is, as yet, insufficient data. You also won’t find anything credible saying gay parents are better or even ‘no worse’, for the same reason.

We will need to wait until the first crop studied are well into maturity.

Robert Smissen, rural SA, God's own country says:

04:20pm | 12/08/10

Two Mummies, where can I sign up for that? ? AFL foot ballers are scourge on our nation! ! !

Glen says:

12:05pm | 12/08/10

Wow, long bow much?

Comparing sperm donors or surrogate mothers to parents of stolen generation is the strangest take I’ve seen on this issue…

Two Mummies says:

12:15pm | 12/08/10

Our daughter wasn’t stolen from anyone. She is lucky enough to have two mothers and a father.

You are insulting not only same-sex families but denegrating the true stolen generation. But if I had to guess I would say that you believe there was no stolen generation either.

Zara says:

12:28pm | 12/08/10

‘taken from their mother or father’????  Incorrect Howy. Many children of same sex parents are born via IVF and semen purchased from willing donors. Their parents are their parents who raise them not those who provided DNA.

Given it is not biologically possible for same gender parents to reproduce, these kids are the product of significant financial investment and is not a decision taken lightly by their parents. 

How easy it is for your average low life parent to just pop out another kid and then abuse that child physically and emotionally but hey - it they’re heterosexual - it must be ok!!  Keisha Abrahams parents must be ok!!! they’re straight!!!  The toddler found in the suitcase in the pond a few years ago had straight parents!!!  Robert Farquarson who drowned his boys - straight!!!!

Your comment and those of others in here are completely basesless and offensive. I used to be a farmer’s wife - one of those people Australian’s love to think of fondly and my partner - ALSO a woman is a police officer.  We share care of our kids with our ex husbands.

They were not ‘removed’ and they are in loving, caring homes and are all healthy, happy and achieving in school and sport. To compare them to the stolen generation is disgusting - it offends me, all other gay people in Australia and most importantly, trivialises the horror that the actual stolen generation went through.

TJ says:

12:50pm | 12/08/10

I agree with Zara on this, to liken sperm donations or even split families where one parent is gay and has a hand in raising the kids where is the stolen coming from? IVF and IUI cost a shit load of money and is incredibly emotional for the couple who desperately want the kid, or its a single woman who missed her chance on love and hasn’t met the ONE and time is running out. she either goes to IUI or gets a friend to donate, either way the child will have a father figure to look up to and teach and if you say that is not enough what about the step-parents or blended families are their contributions nothing?

James1 says:

01:12pm | 12/08/10

TJ,

I would add single mothers and fathers to that as well.  It might not be ideal to not have two parents of both genders, but they do their best, and to denigrate their role like this is ugly and divisive.

TJ says:

01:33pm | 12/08/10

James 1

exactly right, especially if it is the case that one of them has died or taken off, the one left behind does the best they can with what they have and the child knows they are not a burdon and are loved and wanted. and isn’t that the main thing?

Hillsgirl says:

01:41pm | 12/08/10

@howy: what rot. Stolen generations = government *driven*, not merely sanctioned, forced removal of children +/- placement of said children into abusive situations solely on racial lines. Same sex parenting = an infertile couple doing what they have to to have children. Just as I would if I was an infertile heterosexual or infertile single woman. Your insult to the experience of the stolen generation is sickening.

Fred says:

11:12am | 13/08/10

@howy - you can’t just say things like that without expecting repercussions.  As an Indigenous Australian I am disgustingly offended at your comparison.  All the comments above already point out the stupidity of your comment so I won’t bother repeating it.

Just know how many people you are offending by making this comparison.

n_dude says:

01:50pm | 13/08/10

Family First by a “Whisker”....

Biteme says:

12:36pm | 12/08/10

Sam, there is a mountains of research that shows same sex relationships are not as stable as heterosexual relationships. There is also mountains of evidence that sexually transmitted diseases, casual sex, and drug use is much more prevalent in homosexual relationships. Don’t try to play with facts. Its’ old news. Kids don’t need anymore of that then already exists in society.

Steely Dan says:

12:47pm | 12/08/10

@ Biteme

“there is a mountains of research that shows same sex relationships are not as stable as heterosexual relationships”
Then present it.

TJ says:

12:52pm | 12/08/10

Hey biteme, my gay friends are much more ‘together’ than my straight friends, and don’t knock casual sex, EVERYONE does it at least once in their life. where do you stand on those who are into BDSM as parents? coz most of those I know are straight couples

TheRealDave says:

12:54pm | 12/08/10

What research?

From the Ponds Institute?

Biteme says:

12:57pm | 12/08/10

Steely Dan, what you want me to do? Go and scan all my Psych Nursing Notes for you. Photocopy the DSM-5. I worked years in Psych and Drug dependency units, jails, I also worked in the sex toy industry. I worked in the real life of it.  Do the research yourself.

Macca says:

01:02pm | 12/08/10

@Biteme, Wow, where do I begin? The Generalisations! They’re everywhere!

First of all, some relationships are stable, others are not. I have known kids who grew up in Divorce and ended up fine, and I have known kids who grew up with both parents who maybe didn’t turn out as good. Raising a child isn’t rocket science, if they have a loving parent that is half the battle.

As for the STIs, that is clearly born out of the old AIDS mythologies from the 80s and 90s.

Basically your opinions are painfully Homophobic which is pretty disappointing.

Biteme says:

01:15pm | 12/08/10

Macca, you calling me Homophobic is offensive. I have no irrational fear of homosexuals. I just don’t think kids should be adopted into same sex marriages because of the evidence linking to breakdowns, drug use and all the other things I mentioned before.

TJ says:

01:36pm | 12/08/10

@Biteme - psychology is an art not a science, not everyone has the same reactions or experiences, you cannot pidgeon hole people into one or the other, there are shades of grey.

I was attacked once at 17 while on the job and the company had a shrink talk to me on the phone, i got told all sorts of rubbish about having trouble sleeping, being afraid to go out at night, that I would have flashbacks and be unable to function for a long while.  she made me more upset that I was and guess what? I slept like a baby that night no medications needed and at nearly 30 have never had a bad moment, was not afraid to go out at night, I remember the incident but meh shit happens

Biteme says:

01:51pm | 12/08/10

TJ, Psychology maybe an art, but I’m not talking about Psychology. I was a Psychiatric Nurse, and Psychiatry is a science. Theres a lot of misinformation flowing around here, and a lot of personal agendas too.
It’s a shame the innocent ones always suffer as a result.

TJ says:

02:10pm | 12/08/10

I don’t know bite me, I recall a time where psychiatrists could actually show part of the brain that would prove certain people are more likely to be violent criminals, they scanned all these prisoners brains and only a rare few of them actually had the part the dude was talking about. still sounds like an art. psychiatry/psychology same same

Two Mummies says:

02:21pm | 12/08/10

The innocent ones who suffer the most are children of gay parents, NOT because they have gay parents but because of people like you Biteme who demonise their families and continue to preach hatred and intolerance.

The real victims are the innocent children of religious zealots who warp their childrens minds and feed them hate and bile for breakfast, lunch, and dinner wrapped up in a sanctimonious belief that they are better than anyone else.

barry says:

02:43pm | 12/08/10

@Two Mummies
If this was TRUE, then the best thing for homosexual couples looking to became parents would be to don’t.  Willingly putting your children through all the hate and bile would seem so selfish!  Biteme hasn’t really said anything overtly homophobic or hateful, but is merely questioning the balanced parenthood that could be given from two people of the same sex.  I don’t know about casual sex and drug use being more prevalent, but AID’s certainly is in the U.S particularly between male homosexuals.  That said it has nothing to do with the argument, but I dislike when people attempt to distort reality.

TJ says:

02:50pm | 12/08/10

exactly Two Mummies - kids tease about hair colour, shape of ears, height things like that, the only way they know about a childs circumstanes being less than ideal is if some adult tells them, who’s in the wrong then? should we foster this hatred to children? how is that fair?

Biteme says:

03:07pm | 12/08/10

Hey TJ, I’ve read some of your other posts. With that in mind, I’m interested to know how you would feel about a Middle Eastern family who are strict Muslims wearing Burquas adopting a little white Anglo Saxon girl? (now tell the truth).

TJ says:

04:02pm | 12/08/10

@Biteme - religion has nothing to do with sexuality, it’s not the same thing, straight parents produce gay kids all the time, all my gay friends had hetero parents, being gay does not mean you will raise gay children it just means you will be more open minded about choice, so since they are not the same at all I wont be answering that question.

Tarzan says:

05:17pm | 12/08/10

TJ, but you just did answer the question.

References aren't difficult says:

11:26am | 13/08/10

actually biteme you don’t need to scan your notes. Just reference them so that others may view the articles for themselves and if you have been studying Psychiatric Nursing, reference them in the approved APA style, Surname, Initial.(Year). Title of Article. Journal, volume, page number. This allows others to view and evaluate the validity and reliability of the articles and to assess any bias or conflict of interest by the authors and the limitations of the studies, surely being familiar with research protocols etc you can provide this basic information. By the way did you studies include Critical Research Analysis or were the articles just provided. I studied Psychology and have completed a Masters degree in Health. BTW the DSM 5 wont be published until 2013, I presume you are refering to the DSM-IV TR.

Fred says:

03:22pm | 13/08/10

@References aren’t difficult

....

BAM!!!  hahahah would really like to see BiteMe respond to that. (And actually RESPOND to it…)

LC says:

11:49am | 09/01/11

@ Biteme

“there is a mountains of research that shows same sex relationships are not as stable as heterosexual relationships. There is also mountains of evidence that sexually transmitted diseases, casual sex, and drug use is much more prevalent in homosexual relationships.”

[citation needed]

Will says:

01:07pm | 12/08/10

Astrid, I too have wondered why Gillard and (Abbott not so much) does not support or want to allow gay marriage.  I think between the intolerant religious voters and the conservative voters there may be enough votes to ensure they sustain this discrimination and get away with it.  Kind of depressing really as Australia is such an amazing country in so many ways yet we cling on to some medieval ideas.

Dick says:

02:01pm | 12/08/10

But Tony reckons he’s the love child of John Howard and Browyn Bishop.  Sort of a same sex thing going there, isn’ t there (although I’m not sure which)?

Gavin says:

02:48pm | 12/08/10

The fact is if Labor were to make it a policy in this election, they would get a big portion of Green votes, which by themselves are not of value (considering Green voters TEND to preference Labor anyway). They would get NO conservative votes and lose Labor votes. It’s a false economy at the moment. But the Gay Marriage cause still needs to be fought until we get into a position where such a policy becomes a vote winner.

megan says:

03:38pm | 12/08/10

gay marriage should be a bipartisan issue, not decided by which party wants to win an election. there should be a national referendum held for something so important. for the record, I would whole heartedly support gay marriage.

howy says:

01:14pm | 12/08/10

It’s reasoned comments like yours that should give everyone some hope in the future.

Two Mummies says:

01:15pm | 12/08/10

What surrogate parents exactly are you referring too Barry? There was no surrogate involved in the creation of my same-sex family.

By your logic adoption should be banned altogether, as should IVF for couples and alturistic surrogacy…...

I and my same-sex partner are our childs parents and the Family Court of Australia agree’s with us as they sanctioned our family and afforded us the protection of the law when they granted my partner a parenting order as the non birth mother.

And by the way just in case you didn’t know actual legal adoption in Australia, regardless of where the kid came from or who the parents are, is as rare as hen’s teeth these days. The preferred and almost mandatory option for the Family Court of Australia is to issue a parenting order.

TJ says:

01:40pm | 12/08/10

Unless the childrens parents sign over their parental right or have the kids taken off them due to abuse and/or drug problems the most likely reason children are up for adoption in this country is that both parents are dead and there are no other family to take them in. would you want the children to be with thier drug addict parents to be physically and/or sexually abused? is that best for the CHILD? and children adopted from 3rd world nations are to give the child a better life.

Barry says:

02:04pm | 12/08/10

@TJ The U.N. charter states “as far as possible” or when the child’s safety and well-being is compromised.

TJ says:

02:29pm | 12/08/10

@Barry, I really have no interest in the UN, but you really should have stated that litle extra tidbit when you made your claim above

James1 says:

01:41pm | 12/08/10

Perhaps not.  But you do seem to believe that homosexuals are more immoral than heterosexuals.  I guess that would make you ignorant, rather than fearful of humans…

Hillsgirl says:

01:50pm | 12/08/10

@ biteme: never heard of the word homogeneous or still trying to work out what it means? Hmm, “human… something….” Irrational fear of education maybe? ‘Homo’ comes form the Greek, not the Latin

Biteme says:

02:02pm | 12/08/10

James1: to call me ignorant is to call me uninformed. You don’t know me or my story. One could say you are ignorant to call me ignorant, in fact that would be more precise if you consider it carefully.

James1 says:

02:24pm | 12/08/10

I can only make a judgement on the basis of the evidence before me, Biteme.  And so far, all you have presented are the usual gay-hate rubbish, that they are mostly drug using, promiscuous and more likely to engage in group sex.  In what way are these old prejudices evidence of a highly educated point of view?  Then again, I do not have all the information about you - only what you have chosen to share.  And what I see makes you look pretty ignorant of gay people so far.

Laura says:

03:51pm | 12/08/10

From what I can tell Biteme, the problem with your argument is that it relies on generalistions, and that’s not fair.

You say that homosexual couples are more likely to break up, take drugs, or engage in casual sex, and they should therefore not be allowed to raise children. But if people who are hetrosexual can live this same unstable, drug enhanced and promiscuous lifestyle and still retain custody of their children, then homosexual couples should have the same rights. To do otherwise is making a judgement that we have no right to make. You can talk about certain individuals that in your opinion should not be allowed to raise children because of their unstable lifestyle. But you can’t generalise it to those with a certain sexual preference.

If research revealed that a certain ethnicity had higher rates of divorce, drug taking and promiscuity, would you lobby for that entire ethnicity to be legally discriminated against?

Whether you personally agree with a people being gay is irrelevant. The point as far as I can see is that the government actively defends homosexuals against discrimination on one hand, while actively encouraging discrimination on the other by not allowing them an equal status as heterosexuals.

And to those that believe marriage is a sacred religious institution, I say that as long as I as a heterosexual atheist can get married in a civil service with no mention of religion, and still be recognised as married by law, then homosexuals should be able to as well.

Two Mummies says:

01:36pm | 12/08/10

Well said!

The BDSM thing is a bit of a red herring though. You can still have a kinky adult sex life and be a good parent, the two are not mutually exclusive and kinky adult sex is usually confined to the singles scene (gay or straight) because we parents of toddlers are too tired at the end of the day to even go there most nights!!!!!

Barry says:

02:00pm | 12/08/10

Yes . . . .so when a child is born of a man’s semen and of a mother’s eggs who are the child’s biological parents?  I would have thought that all living children have the same intrinsic rights.  You are suggesting that as an IVF baby the right to live, know, and be cared for by the biological parents are removed from the child.  Nonetheless, your strawman arguments were amusing.

Steely Dan says:

02:32pm | 12/08/10

@ barry

“I would have thought that all living children have the same intrinsic rights.”
What if one or both biological parent is abusive?  What if one is a donor and doesn’t wish to be a parent?  Has that donor had something ‘stolen’ from them?

Zara’s point is a good one.

Two Mummies says:

02:32pm | 12/08/10

So Barry are you saying you can only be a parent if you are biologically related to a child? And by extension if you are not biologically related to the child then somehow the parenting provided to the child is sub-standard, tantamount to abuse and should not be allowed?

Biological relatedness does not equal good parenting.

Michael says:

03:12pm | 12/08/10

What about adoptive parents? What about foster parents? What about widowed parents? Who crusades for the rights of children in these situations?

Opposition to gay people raising kids is cut-and-dry homophobia, nothing else. It’s not about concern for the traditional family unit, because nobody bemoans or denigrates the aforementioned family units.

TJ says:

03:14pm | 12/08/10

Two Mummies - I used the BDSM as some today and on yesterday’s one were saying that same sex couples having kids was not natural or normal, I threw BDSM in as a lot of people don’t consider it normal, or people who dress up as furry animals and go to conventions to have furry animal sex, red herrings yes but I thought I would go extreme since the idea of 2 mums or 2 dads being abuse was just ridiculous

Barry says:

06:40pm | 12/08/10

@Steely Dan
This argument has nothing to do with bad parenting, abuse parenting, or wishing not to be a parent.  The U.N., which plays a large part in determining universal-like morals has determined that it is a child’s right to live, know, and be cared for by it’s parents unless it is harmful for the child.  This has nothing to do with the parents really.  By removing a child, whether directly after birth, or sometime later out of the care and knowledge of it’s biological parents/parent you could be technically going against this charter.  This applies to all cases not just ones involving homosexuals.  Questioning homosexuals raising kids isn’t homophobia.  It’s scientific logic as humans have evolved with a mother father partnership therefore the possible consequences of that change to a same-sex partnership need to be fully understood.

TJ says:

11:52am | 13/08/10

@Barry - who cares what the UN thinks? are you there spokesman or something? do you get a fee for mentioning them or something? they stick their noses in where they don’t belong. california has legalised gay marriage again, a judge overruled and said it should be allowed.

Steely Dan says:

12:58pm | 13/08/10

@ Barry
“By removing a child, whether directly after birth, or sometime later out of the care and knowledge of it’s biological parents/parent you could be technically going against this charter.”
The fact the UN don’t appear to be on the anti-gay-parenting bandwagon means you’re probably not interpreting the charter the same way they do.  Does the charter specify that parents must be in all cases biological?
You’re also using the term ‘removed’ again without acknowledging that many biological parents clearly and legally relinquish the right to have full or partial custody of their biological child.

“It’s scientific logic as humans have evolved with a mother father partnership therefore the possible consequences of that change to a same-sex partnership need to be fully understood.”
You’re appealing to what’s known as the ‘naturalistic’ fallacy.  And the claim that the universal parenting experience has been one of male/female partnership is completely unfounded.  You only have to look at many traditional Australian indigenous communities to see that your claim is cultural, not biological.

And we do understand the ‘possible consequences’ – there are none.  And even if you reject the findings of the studies that have been undertaken, not knowing what the consequences of an action are is insufficient reason to deny somebody a right that others enjoy.  Pop psychology declarations that ‘everyone needs a mother and a father’ don’t come close to cutting it.

Gavin says:

03:07pm | 12/08/10

Um so…for your second point, is that not a justification for gay people raising children if the chances of abuse are no better or worse?

TJ says:

03:17pm | 12/08/10

Um Astrid your point 1 would also preclude hetero parents as a lot of the arguments being thrown about is that in nature it’s one of each

megan says:

03:42pm | 12/08/10

the g rated advertising thing was such a nice idea. pitty it came from such a nutbag!

Michael says:

03:48pm | 12/08/10

I hope she takes Steve Fielding down with her at the election. He is a thorn in the side of working democracy.

Nicole says:

06:01pm | 12/08/10

@Michael, yep agreed. I’ll also add he’s an absolute pain in the backside. Mr Fielding lives on a different planet.

TJ says:

04:17pm | 12/08/10

I agree with most of what you have said, however, marrying for love only came about in the 1900’s, before then even when it first came about it was used primarily to form alliances between families, yes in some cases love formed from these arrangements but more often than not both parties took lovers and the children were raised by wet-nurses and nannies.

Gavin says:

04:33pm | 12/08/10

Thank God for evolution then TJ.

TJ says:

04:43pm | 12/08/10

Oh Gavin I agree, I didn’t say it was right, that was just the norm, obviously it is better if two people love each other and want to make this commitment, it’s no guarantee against cheating but it does help. also back then divorce wasn’t an option so one would hope with divorce no longer the stigma it used to be that people are still more careful with this institution, you can get divorced online now what is that? I think marriage has become too commercialised