Prev
Next

It’s time to allow gay couples to adopt children

Senthorun Raj

by Senthorun Raj

28 Jun 05:45am

Must Reads

We don’t deserve this huge, exciting scientific project - this is a caption

We don’t deserve this huge, exciting scientific project

41

Mining money talks the loudest in Australian politics - this is a caption

Mining money talks the loudest in Australian politics

60

Please enter your password - this is a caption

Please enter your password

39

Filed under: Adoption, Children, Families, Gay Issues, Nsw Government

91 comments

‘It is in the best interests of children to have both a mother and a father’. In a society where marriage, heterosexuality and family are so closely intertwined, such a simple, albeit clichéd, statement would seem uncontroversial.

A young girl in front of a gay rights banner in Rome. Photo: AFP

In fact, the idea of a mother and a father in a married relationship carries such political and cultural currency that it is hard to imagine having children in circumstances that do not fit neatly under the matrimonial rubric.

So how do we then manage to contemplate a family unit that is not only unmarried, but has two mums or two dads?

In moving to recognise the status of existing and potential same-sex families, the recently introduced Adoption Amendment (Same-Sex Couples) Bill removes the last piece of legislative discrimination against same-sex couples in NSW. The basic rationale behind this Bill is that the sexuality of prospective parents should not be a determinative factor when it comes to protecting the welfare of children.

In NSW, the Adoption Act currently uses an archaic heterosexual definition of “de facto”, “spouse” and “partner” to preclude same-sex couples eligibility to be considered to adopt. Adoption is not a right. However, the legislative barriers in the Adoption Act send out a troubling social message that a person’s non-heterosexual orientation necessarily makes them an inadequate parent.

It is unsurprising then that homophobic ideas that conflate paedophilia and homosexuality continue to exist, when the law itself seems to implicitly connect gay or lesbian parents as potential risks to children.

Discriminatory rhetoric utilised in the pursuit protecting children is not new.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander families have suffered the forcible removal of children. The commonly referred to “Stolen Generation” represents an era of Government policy that imputed a lack of parenting ability to persons of an indigenous heritage. While such a racially motivated policy is now rightly met with abhorrence and apology, why does the NSW Government continue to promote a construct of parenting that disenfranchises same-sex families?

While not contesting the value of the typical nuclear family, part of the problem with our understanding of parenting is the overemphasis of gender. Feminist politics has laboured across generations to contest the popular idea that women bear the primary responsibility or desire for raising children because of their reproductive anatomy. As surprising as this may be to some, not all women want to be mothers. The association between motherhood and nurturing, or fatherhood and discipline, reveals more about our limited cultural stereotypes than any gendered natural predispositions.

Social research on families ably demonstrates that it is the processes of parenting, rather than the family structure that matters. Credible psychological studies discern that children in same-sex families do not demonstrate any important differences in development, happiness, peer relations and adjustment.

Adoption often evokes the image of a mother giving her child to unknown parents. Despite the prevalence of this image in our cultural imaginary, this form of adoption accounts for only a very small percentage of adoptions in NSW. Adoption reform will have the most significant impact on the already 1,500 children living in same-sex families in NSW (what is referred to as “known adoption”).

If a child is unable to have both their parents legally recognised, they will be denied rights, entitlements and benefits associated with the non-legal parent.  This includes automatic rights to inheritance, superannuation benefits or worker’s compensation. Parentage also ensures custody and contact for parents upon relationship breakdown, including child support obligations on a non-resident parent. The Bill also amends definitions of ‘step parent’ to include same-sex couples and this will ensure children have greater certainty around their care and welfare.


Perhaps what makes the Government policy situation to parenting in NSW more confusing, is that same-sex couples are able (even encouraged) to foster children by the NSW Government. Minister for Community Services, Linda Burney, has endorsed parenting by same-sex couples: “Lesbian and gay foster carers make a highly valued contribution to the NSW out-of-home care service system”.

Despite considerable praise for same-sex parenting for vulnerable and displaced children, the NSW law denies these children the durability of having their relationship to their foster parents recognised. Permanency planning, which places children in long-term foster care, continues to be undermined, as children fostered by same-sex couples are then denied the security of adoption. Parenting orders that empower foster carers with parenting responsibilities expire once the child becomes 18, effectively terminating the legal parent-child relationship.

With the NSW Government claiming it is committed to the most vulnerable groups in our society, particularly children, how can disallowing same-sex couple adoption be conducive to this agenda?

Even in the case of unknown adoptions, permitting same-sex couples eligibility for consideration does not undermine the rights of children or other potential parents. Relinquishing parents should have the broadest possible range of options for their children. The adoption process is intricately guided by the consent and wishes of the relinquishing parents. It should be left to the relinquishing parents to decide on the best place and parents for their child from the widest possible diversity of families.

Adoption reform is not foreign territory in Australia. Western Australia, the ACT and Tasmania (in specific circumstances) already permit same-sex couples eligibility to adopt children.

Equality and non-discrimination before the law are universal rights, not selective privileges. Passing the Adoption Amendment (Same-Sex Couples) Bill will not only benefit children, and existing same-sex families, it will also send an important social message that people should be judged on their individual merits, not on their sexual orientation.

Families come in all shapes and sizes. It is not the lack of a mother or father that should concern us. Rather, it is the continued stigmatisation of same-sex parenting and denying legal recognition to same-sex families that undermines the best interests of children.

Most commented

431Australia, you have nothing to fear but fear itself
390There's no one Thomson won't burn to save his skin
336Animal experiments won't cure me from cancer
313Thomson didn't answer the question everyone is asking
266Who murdered the Arts degree?
246A big day for Thomson, who thus far is guilty of nothing...
231South Australia. It's the middle bottom bit.
231Craig Thomson speaks. Meanwhile, in Australia...

91 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Von says:

      07:19am | 28/06/10

      Any Bill that reflects the rights of adoptees to have equal rights with others is a good Bill in my book.

      Reply

    • Adam Diver says:

      08:34am | 28/06/10

      When I was younger I was against same-sex adoptions fearing the unique position the child would be placed with. This of course came from a happy nuclear family background.

      With age and wisdom I realise how follish I had been. The family unit in Australia is in tatters in many cases. Seprations, abuse, drug use, unemployment, selfishness I see it every day. There are so many bad parents out there and so many kids that should be removed by the state. So if someone is going to be a decent parent, the last thing that matters is there sexuality. All that matters is the childs welfare, and if they get teased at school for having two dads or two mums, its still a hell of a lot better then having your parents leave you at home for 2 days because they overdosed on thier night out.

      Reply

    • Jack says:

      10:48am | 28/06/10

      The solution to that is to teach families to make things right. Organizations like Family Education Australia are an example of this.

      If you think that the solution to bad parenting is to give kids to same sex couples, well, there are drug addicts and potential bad parents in that group too.

      You’re partly right, kids need good role models. But there is enough research done on attachment which clearly defines the need for a male role model and a female role model (as you say, non-junkie role models), for both a boy and a girl.

      The article’s argument on stolen generation is irrelevant, a total straw man.

    • DJ says:

      04:21pm | 28/06/10

      The male and female role model though doesn’t need to be a parent, what about an aunt or grandmother? uncle or grandfather? cousin even? teacher who inspires them? a coach? there are so many other possible role models to consider.

    • Kordez says:

      08:55am | 28/06/10

      Good idea, but I think it’s more important for same sex couples to receive legal recognition of their relationship first, in the same manner a heterosexual couple does through marriage.
      And I’d agree that introducing legislation that prevents same sex couples from making certain choices is discriminatory as preventing a certain race from some legal benefits would be racist.

      Reply

    • Margaret Gray says:

      09:04am | 28/06/10

      A child needs a mother and a father.  Only a parent knows this.

      Explain to me how a gay or lesbian couple can provide this?

      And spare me “I’ve got male/female friends” rubbish.

      Just admit it’s all about YOU and YOUR needs.

      Reply

    • Cathz0r says:

      09:44am | 28/06/10

      Explain how single mothers and fathers do it then, Margaret.
      According to your logic, a widower father cannot provide adequate care for his children. The sooner people like you disappear, the better.

    • Rick says:

      11:00am | 28/06/10

      Sorry Cathzor, but Margaret is right. There is evidence about it. Read before giving your opinion. Widowers can provide care, but a child needs both role models, male and female. Besides, a kid with a deceased mother/father, still has that background and memorial role to which to identify.

    • Vicki says:

      11:51am | 28/06/10

      Margaret Gray, you do not speak for me. I am a parent and I do not “know” that:
      “A child needs a mother and a father.”

      A child needs loving and supportive parents. I have met plenty of adults who were raised by same sex parents who do not feel they missed out on anything and are perfectly well-adjusted members of the community.

    • DR says:

      12:04pm | 28/06/10

      Oh Margaret, after reading your comments and logic, I dare say you escaped from the kitchen again and are free-thinking.  Get back into the kitchen otherwise I’ll let your hubby know and when his tea isn’t on the table as soon as he gets home from work he will smack you around again (those damn walls and doors you walk into, oh dear).

      I agree, the sooner closed minded individuals such as yourself are bred out of existence we will have a nicer world in which to live.

    • WayneT says:

      12:23pm | 28/06/10

      We can’t always control when a child will be left with just one parent to raise them whether through a death or seperation, but we can control placing a child into a same sex relationship.  This argument is about what the adults want, not what is in the best interest for the child.  We should always strive to place children in a balanced family situation.  Provide both male and female mentoring.  There is too much research that backs this to be ignored by those with their own agenda.  I fully understand when these couples want to fill that void in their lives, as my partner can’t have children ourselves.

    • Tim says:

      12:53pm | 28/06/10

      Vicki,
      if I was raised by same sex parents how would I know I’d missed out on anything? I never would have experienced it.
      Every child should have the right to a mother and a father.
      Now just because in some circumstances this is impossible doesn’t mean we should purposefully cause it to happen to other children.

    • Grant says:

      01:24pm | 28/06/10

      Margaret (and Rick), what evidence do you have for supporting your remarks, please name it, and don’t say everybody knows.

    • Steely Dan says:

      01:43pm | 28/06/10

      @ Rick
      “Sorry Cathzor, but Margaret is right. There is evidence about it. Read before giving your opinion.”
      Source please.

    • DJ says:

      04:40pm | 28/06/10

      Rick not if the parent died before they were born. seriously that kind of thinking is as antiquated as the institute of ‘marriage’ seriously people we are in 2010, these need to change, you can get as much role model from a famiily member or coach or teacher

    • Futureproof says:

      04:58pm | 28/06/10

      Instead of the argument of Gay parents, how about hetrosexual parents naming their male child Chloe, or Elizabeth.  Then send them to school and see how long they last.  Get the point.  It is the children that have to live with this social experiment, not the latte sipping gay couple.

    • James1 says:

      01:45pm | 29/06/10

      Sure, when it comes to adoption, a father and a father or a mother and a mother is better than no parents at all.

      It seems stingy and lacking in basic compassion and decency to deny a child a family, where the other option is no family, simply because there is no man/woman in the family.  Its not like we are talking about forcing children in conventional families into non-conventional families.  We are talking about putting more children into family homes, and to me that seems like a gain no matter how said family homes are constituted.

    • Les says:

      04:15pm | 30/06/10

      @ Cathzor & DR: My word how intolerant are you two!! You don’t want to live in a world were opinions differ from you, and your solution is to allow/make them dissappear…now where have I heard that rhetoric before…hmm it started with a failed Austrian artist didn’t it? Stick to the facts argued and let’s not belt each other with poor cliches (DR) and howls of indignation over opposite points of view.

    • Muttley says:

      04:10pm | 01/07/10

      Les, well said. Apparently if anyone fails to fall into line with the new social order then they are racists, bigots and or rednecks. Heaven forbid anyone disagree. And lets not forget one more point. There is a huge wait for adoptions. So its not as if there are masses of children who are not being adopted. So this debate is really should same sex couples be weighted evenly with male/female couples or should different sex couples be given preference?

    • AJ says:

      09:35am | 28/06/10

      Completely agree with this article.

      However, given how few (non-related/family) adoptions there are throughout Australia each year (isn’t it under 100 or something), I’m not sure whether permitting same-sex adoptions in those States where it is currently banned would make a major difference.

      To make any kind of impact, it would also require a different approach to dealing with children in care since the current approach in respect of those children appears to be to keep them in foster care in the hopes that their biological parents will one day be able to care for them again. In those circumstances, it would appear that foster parents (gay or straight) are going to continue to be prevented from permanently adopting their foster children.

      If Australia amended/widened its approach to international adoptions, then it may also help matters, but the majority of those countries with “plenty” of children available for adoption also set their own criteria for adoptive parents and in most cases, I think they expressly exclude same-sex couples (although I think some of them do permit adoption by single men and women which is why international adoption in the US is more readily available for same-sex couples (in the name of one of the parents only)). I don’t think Australia currently permits single-parent international adoption, which makes things more difficult.

      The marriage issue may also help, since a married same-sex couple may have access to international adoptions, but it would still be up to the home country to set the requirements for the adoptive parents and if they prevent adoption by a same-sex couple, then “married” or not, adoption will still be unavailable.

      It appears that the rules surrounding adoption would require a lot more work, than simply being expanded to include same-sex couples before there is a real benefit for all couples looking to adopt in Australia (gay or straight).

      Reply

    • Alex says:

      09:40am | 28/06/10

      What an excellent article. On so many levels, it is really disturbing that we think that people will make better parents or spouses becuase of their sexuality. Have we learnt nothing from similar policies based on race, class, religion etc?

      Reply

    • Cathz0r says:

      09:41am | 28/06/10

      I enjoyed reading your article very much, Senthorun. There are many people who refuse to believe that families should come in any other shapes and sizes apart from 1 father, 1 mother and a couple of children. In the history of the world, there have been so many different types of upbringings. In various tribes, children have been brought up by a group of women, grandparents, groups of men.. and guess what, the world kept going! Most men are still attracted to women and vice versa.

      Reply

    • James says:

      11:22am | 28/06/10

      I agree Cathzor. Exactly which part of human history saw us only have one matriarchal figure and one patriarchal figure in our life? What ever happened to many familes - and multiple parents/grandparents living together, or in a modern context, ‘under one roof’?
      Why can’t a kid have more than one father figure and mother figure? For instance 7 kids and three parents as may happen in a step-father/mother situation.
      As soon as we address this question we can address the ‘two parents only, one father and one mother’ structure we love to talk about in the 21st century, and which is plainly ridiculous in so many people’s lives.

    • AFR says:

      09:54am | 28/06/10

      As someone who simply gave up after several years of trying to adopt (and from the same country that my wife was originally from no less), the ridiculous red tape surrounding adoption, both within Australia and from overseas should be addressed first.

      As far as gay adoption goes - perhaps its a chicken and egg thing. Children of gay parents, adopted or not, will be crucified in the schoolyard, but unless it starts happending and is accepted as normal, then attitides will never change.

      Reply

    • Vicki says:

      11:21am | 28/06/10

      (Just for the record…children of gay parents are not always crucified in the schoolyard. It all depends on where they are living, how supportive the teachers and local parents are, and the child’s personality/abilities/look etc. A beautiful, athletic and talented child living in an informed and progressive area will rarely be crucified - that’s the way the “schoolyard” works.

      A culture that does not tolerate difference but does tolerate disrespect and bullying is the issue that needs to be addressed.)

    • Eleanor says:

      11:10am | 28/06/10

      I have nothing to add Senthorun. You’ve pretty much hit the nail on the head. This is a great article.

      Reply

    • Shane From Melbourne says:

      12:08pm | 28/06/10

      Completely agree with this article. Also same sex couples should have access to the legal equivalent of marriage.

      Reply

    • howy says:

      12:34pm | 28/06/10

      Does Senthorun Raj realise that Christians aren’t going to be full participating members of a society that contradicts their core beliefs in the long term?

      Progressives should be aware of what they’ll lose when they pursue their agenda.

      And please tell me why an adopted child to same sex parents couldn’t sue the government, once they’ve realised what’s happened, for denying them a father and mother?

      Reply

    • Bob says:

      02:10pm | 28/06/10

      @ howy,

      So it’s your way or the highway then? I think this is why you’re finding more and more people telling you where to stick your fundamentalist beliefs. Why is it christians can demand society reflects their values when a muslim or atheist who does the same thing is called a dangerous subversive?

      And as for that argument about suing the state (possibly the most ridiculous statement I’ve ever seen here), it will probably come true at about the same time war-widows start suing the Army. Don’t be so ridiculous.

      Back under your rock, please.

    • progressivesunite says:

      02:50pm | 28/06/10

      I think you’ll find there won’t be any lawsuits, howy - most of the children we’re talking about here already live with one of their biological parents and that parent’s same-sex partner, and their other parent would just become an adoptive parent to them - ‘the government’ isn’t deciding where kids will live…..they already live with their same-sex couple parents!!!

    • jen says:

      01:52am | 29/06/10

      i’d be more inclined to sue the church, once i’ve realised what’s happened, for bringing me up in denial of reality…

      also, why should children have to model themselves on an adult that has the same genital anatomy as they do… so they can learn how to become perfect masculine/feminine clones and reproduce the same gender stereotypes that have proven so restrictive of anyone daring to be different?

    • Von says:

      09:53am | 29/06/10

      Perhaps all adoptees could sue the Government for allowing them to be adopted and suffer removal from their mother, PTSD and Adoption Syndrome.All adoptees were denied their mother and father.

    • James1 says:

      01:50pm | 29/06/10

      howy, if the government refused to allow a gay couple to adopt a child, and they were the only couple willing to do so, could the child then sue the government for preventing them having any parents at all?

    • Muttley says:

      04:23pm | 01/07/10

      No Jen, not to be clones at all. But it is important to have role models of the same sex and of the opposite sex. Otherwise these kids get to be adults and have no idea at all as to what it means to be a man or a woman. My god, all these warm and fuzzy posts are infuriating. Dont you see that little boys need men to look up to??????The same as little girls need women to look up to. But then it goes further. It is ABSOLUTELY vital for kids to have role models of both sexes to aspire to. That is not saying parents of both sexes, merely role models in their lives. Ahh bugger it. You’re right. Let’s let small animals adopt as well. After all, we cant discriminate against them can we?

    • Lee from WA says:

      12:35pm | 28/06/10

      The argument works if you say gender has no bearing in parenting but it does. Kids should have a mother and father, not two mothers or two fathers. A child needs both, an idea which goes beyond homosexual adoption and into how we view heterosexuals parent too.

      Reply

    • James1 says:

      01:55pm | 29/06/10

      But isn’t one, of either sex, better than no parents?  And, by extension, isn’t two of the same sex better than none?

    • Daniel says:

      01:21pm | 28/06/10

      If gays are interested in child adoption the only party that has these kinds of policies is the Australian Greens. Change the government I say.

      Reply

    • Fred says:

      01:26pm | 28/06/10

      Interesing article but why does it have to be limited to sexual partners, why not 2 brothers, or 2 sisters, 2 friends, a mother and her son can adopt. I think we should descriminate against weather people are sexually active or not. If there is a love bond why cant anyone adopt?

      Reply

    • Tim says:

      02:01pm | 28/06/10

      This is actually a great point.
      If I am extremely wealthy, why can’t I adopt say 50 children?
      What is so special about a couple?
      Why can’t a group of friends band together and have a shared group of adopted kids?
      This discrimination has got to stop.

    • Georginorx says:

      03:17pm | 28/06/10

      Tim, I’m not sure what your point is about adopting 50 children - so many children with just one parent would mean they wouldn’t get the emotional support they need from their caregiver.
      I do agree with opening up adoption to non-traditional family structures though.
      The sole focus of restrictions on adoption should be on whether the child can be supported in all the aspects that they need to be able develop in to well-adjusted adults, and have the same opportunities as any other child. The issue with this idea is agreeing what ingredients you need to achieve this. I think that the benefit to a foster child of having one capable, loving, and supportive parent far outstrips the possible impact of not having say a male role model. And if you can accept a single parent caring for a child, what argument is there against two parents of the same sex?

    • Andrew says:

      01:34pm | 28/06/10

      I think one thing some posters have missed is that central issue here is “known adoption”. That is existing same-sex families where both parents are raising the children born/adopted of one or both parents together. Same-sex adoption will allow the non-legal parent to have rights as a parent, and also give that child rights to inheritance, next-of-kin etc.

      This is not going to lead to an influx of Gay parents looking to adopt, it will simply mean that those existing Gay parented families can and will be recognised legally.

      Reply

    • N says:

      01:59pm | 28/06/10

      I look around and see the commonality of screwed up “traditional” families everywhere; divorces, drug / alcohol abuse, physical / emotional violence, the list can go on and on. Maybe years ago we were worried about bringing kids into an environment that was deemed unacceptable, and thus gay adoption was never allowed. Considering the afore mentioned issues, I think gays adopting kids is far from the top of the list of things we need to be concerned about when it comes to responsible parenting. Perhaps it just adds another possibility to the list of “what caused the downfall in life?”, when it comes time for a therapist visit down the line….

      Reply

    • Tim says:

      02:02pm | 28/06/10

      So because some children are brought up in non-ideal circumstances, we should force it on other children?

      Yeah that makes sense.

    • N says:

      02:35pm | 28/06/10

      Tim,
      I’m not exactly advocating gay adoption, but considering the options between an orphanage or a family environment, regardless of the sexual orientation; you’d have to be pretty dim to insist that an orphanage is a better choice. I’m suggesting that it’s a roll of the dice, neither is an ideal outcome, but clearly one option is better than the other.

    • Gazza says:

      04:04pm | 28/06/10

      Of course you are assuming that all gays are good parents dont have relationship break downs, dont abuse drugs or drink, dotn abuse on a physical or emotional level. Simply assuming some one is gay doesnt mean they are better parents.

      The argument that other families abuse children therefore gay adoption is good is not a good argument. Infact it should be on the right for gays to adopt because they have the same rights. Just like it should be lawful for single parents male and female to adopt. After all it not about kids its about people rights to adopt.

    • DJ says:

      04:53pm | 28/06/10

      @Gazza - that’s why they have the home visits, police checks and other red tape to ensure they are suitable parents, no one is suggesting just handing the child over without checking, seriously guys get a grip it’s not the 1950’s, live in the times the Nuclear family structure is dead and buried

    • Gazza says:

      10:03am | 29/06/10

      @DJ. You are correct the family unit as we know it is constantly under attack and if it isnt dead and buried. Minority lobby groups are tryingthere upmost to kill it off.

    • James1 says:

      02:05pm | 29/06/10

      Gazza,

      I think you will find that it is largely heterosexual families that are destroying heterosexual families.  You can not blame record divorce levels on minority groups, except perhaps insofar as intact families are in the minority.

    • Sean says:

      02:06pm | 28/06/10

      Firstly I believe that a loving heterosexual couple should always be the first choice, not for religious reasons but biological. The fact that it takes a male and female to produce young and this seems to have worked for humanity for thousands of years makes me wary of throwing it aside. However if it was a choice between a loving homosexual couple and an abusive heterosexual couple I would say go the loving gay couple.

      Since you mention discrimination I would ask, if we allow gay couples to adopt then why not singles? If a single man or woman wants to adopt children, should we be allowed to discriminate against them?

      The point I am getting at is that we seem to be stretching the definition of family/marriage in pursuit of ‘equal rights’ we need to make sure this also includes equal responsibility as well.

      Reply

    • Steely Dan says:

      03:56pm | 28/06/10

      @ Sean

      “Since you mention discrimination I would ask, if we allow gay couples to adopt then why not singles?”
      There’s a difference there, Sean.  Two straight people = two people. Two gay people = two people.  One person, straight or gay = one person.  I’m not saying that one person shouldn’t be allowed to adopt, but I think all other things being equal, you’d have to say two care-givers are better than one.

    • Feralman says:

      02:08pm | 28/06/10

      Perhaps, before we go down this path, we should, as a society, readdress the attitudes towards hetro men and the perception that they themselves might actually make good parents – without the need for the support, assistance and, more importantly, approval of women. The argument presented, while mentioning that “Feminist politics has laboured across generations to contest the popular idea that women bear the primary responsibility or desire for raising children because of their reproductive anatomy”  it also fails to mention that in the same action, it has debased the value of heterosexual men in Western society as competent, nurturing parents. By pushing the values of same sex parenting, we are further admonishing this point.
      If gay couples so badly want children, well maybe they should rethink where they’re at – after all wouldn’t it be great if we could ALL have our cake and eat it too.

      Reply

    • Ray says:

      02:08pm | 28/06/10

      Giving homosexuals the right to adopt children, completely ignores the intertests of children that come up for adoption. It would be a gross injustice.
      In any case, there is a gross shortage of such children. There is no reason why homosexuals should get preference over heterosexual couples.

      Reply

    • Bob says:

      03:09pm | 28/06/10

      @ Ray, Who ever said anything about giving homosexual couples first preference? Why is it so difficult for people to engage in this debate without immediately sinking to logical fallacy, hyperbole and outright ignorance?
      Your entire post is reductio ad absurdum.

    • BT says:

      02:15pm | 28/06/10

      Adoption is deeply traumatic for a child, even if the adopting parents are the best of carers. That is a fact. It is far better for the child to remain with their biological parent/s and provide support to the parent rather than remove them entirely. It’s hurtful for those adopted and adopting to acknowlege, but biology matters.  Why else would so many seek their biological parents, and so many of us who aren’t adopted researching our family trees? I have many adopted family members and have studied this as a result, and believe that adoption should be an absolute last resort, not a lifestyle choice or political statement.

      Reply

    • DJ says:

      04:50pm | 28/06/10

      and what if the biological parent doesn’t want them, that they would have had an abortion if they were able and want nothing to do with the kid, is it best to leave them with that parent. I know a lot of adults that were adopted, some from overseas and they love their parents and have met their biological ones in there home country but still live with and call their adoptive parents mum and dad. It’s not that traumatic as rather than be ‘unwanted’ they are desperately wanted

      My cousin used to tell her brother he was adopted all the time (complete lie) but he kept saying to her that just means mum and dad chose him.

      Isn’t it better that the child be loved?  Next you’ll be saying that as a single I shouldn’t be undergoing IUI, no father in the picture at all here but plenty of male role models

    • BT says:

      05:30pm | 28/06/10

      @DJ, if a biological parent does not want a child, then of course it should be given to a loving home. I did not say that all adoptions should be banned. But I think that every effort to keep that child with their parents should be made, whether that be financial support (yes, for single parents too), education, parenting classes or counselling to ensure they have all the skills necessary to parent before making a decision to give their child away. I said adoption should be a last resort because it is proven to be a traumatic experience for children. Babies are programmed to need their mothers for their own survival, they don’t understand the concept of adoption - therefore it is traumatic to be separated from their biological parent. Children also feel alienated from their adoptive parents and siblings, no matter how close the family is, and often report depression and deep seated anger. This is not because they aren’t loved, but as a result of the grief of losing their biological parents, rejection and “what might have been”. The peer reviewed research is there, and also my family members who were adopted and have adopted children have had huge issues with it. They are loved, but it is a complex and upsetting issue. You should do some indepth research, and please don’t make assumptions about what I will supposedly say next.

    • Peter says:

      02:56pm | 28/06/10

      Every child deserves a shot of having both a mother and a father. We should be doing everything we can to ensure that happens and not legislate to panda to minority groups..

      Reply

    • Kate says:

      04:48pm | 28/06/10

      Damn straight Peter. Why do pandas need human babies anyway? You tell them!

    • DJ says:

      05:10pm | 28/06/10

      yeah I’m with Kate, get those human babies away from panda’s, it’s bad enough some kids get raised by wolves but panda’s are going too far

    • Jeremy says:

      10:42am | 29/06/10

      There’s significant evidence out there that a Panda will just trade the child for more bamboo.  Which of course will then be consumed in the government sponsored bamboo consumption rooms.

    • Christine Smith says:

      02:59pm | 28/06/10

      Politicians will not be inventing anything here, but in many cases simply granting legal rights and protection to people who already exist but must struggle along without the same protections others enjoy. Many homosexual people already have children, either from marriages they have entered into with an opposite sex partner or by sole parenthood. Why should these children be denied the stablity of legal adoption by the parent’s life partner? Biology may (or may not) matter, but it’s plainly no guarantee of great child rearing skills. The criteria for potential adoptive parents of children who have no families should surely be their ability to give a secure and loving home to the child they wish to welcome into their lives ~ and to be able to do so within a legal framework that takes into account matters most non-adoptees need never give a second’s thought to, such as the laws of inheritance.

      Reply

    • AdamC says:

      04:32pm | 28/06/10

      As a gay man with a partner who quite fancies the idea of having (or raising) kids, at least in the abstract, I am confident we would do a better job than a pair of junkies or a struggling single parent. However, I would probably concede that the traditional and, dare I say it, natural family arrangement of mum and dad is best of all.

      So, given the shortage of adoptive kids out there - most unwanted pregnancies are simply terminated rather than rehypothecated into kids needing loving homes - I think any acceptable version of gay adoption would be theoretical. (That is, you wouldn’t see any actual kids going to gay couples.) It would certainly be a ridiculous situation where a gay couple was given a child in preference to an equivalent, infertile, married couple (of different sexes, of course).

      That may not seem fair to extreme equality advocates, and maybe it isn’t. But, in these matters, perceived equality and the claimed needs of adults must take a back seat to the interests of children.

      Reply

    • Tony H says:

      04:33pm | 28/06/10

      Will my tax money be used to pay for all the psychological counseling the kids are going to need?

      Reply

    • DJ says:

      04:57pm | 28/06/10

      why would they need counselling more that kids raised by male/female parents? you are assuming a lot there. And kids get bullied all the time at school, kids are the most vicious animal there is, if it’s not one thing it’s another

    • TC says:

      10:56pm | 28/06/10

      And DJ, youre assuming their are no consequences for the chid who has been adopted.
      It’s not about bullying. Nor is comparison to bad parenting by hetero couples.
      Adopion is a traumatic experience for the child as has been pointed out by BT. It’s an identity and a ‘where do i come from?” thing.
      Do you really think that the individual adopted needs the additional complications?

    • DJ says:

      09:39am | 29/06/10

      TC - as I have mentioned above I know quite a few people who were adopted, my own father was adopted and he never needed counselling for it, he never felt lost and abandoned, he loved his adoptive parents much more than his own and was better off without them (his mother put them up for adoption while his father was working as a mariner and told him they had died) tell would he be better, where are these studies? do they aske EVERY child who was adopted or just a small amount? you can’t conclusively say that all of them feel the ‘where did I come from’ a lot of them don’t care, all the ones I know who have been adopted don’t care and have never had a single worry because in the end they were CHOSEN by their parents.

    • Mick says:

      05:28pm | 28/06/10

      Putting aside the moral questions (im an athiest) when a gay couple adopt thier lifestyle they accept the fact that these doors are now closed to them. They are in a same sex relationship, they forgo any rights to children. If they can find some way to concive naturally then so be it.  Otherwise, sorry you made your bed, lie in it.  Its like saying im gay but…

      Reply

    • Lauryn says:

      11:42am | 29/06/10

      Does this also go for women that marry in their forties? Or men that have a low sperm count? Or perhaps people that know they carry the gene for a genetic disorder?  What about women that had to have a hysterectomy at 11?

    • DJ says:

      12:03pm | 29/06/10

      Adpot their lifestyle? it’s not a choice to be gay, they could always just use a surrogate or fertility clinic

    • Jimi Hendrix says:

      05:46pm | 28/06/10

      In the Judaeo Christian tradition the word love is represented in the Trinitarian concept in Genesis 1:1 where there are three distinct equal beings whose mutual reciprocal actions between themselves denotes a unity in thought and will. In the opposing gay view, love is represented in the type of relationship preferences shared between two people of the same sex. Now preference can know very little about a unity in thought and will because it is a finite concept un-related to moral motions. Let us not confuse linguistics analysis with thinking expressing beings. Islam also lacks a universal to explain thinking and expressing as does science and Buddhism. So what now?

      Reply

    • Adam says:

      08:40pm | 28/06/10

      I completely agree with you Senthorun
      Hopefully most of the NSW MPs will too

      Reply

    • TC says:

      11:14pm | 28/06/10

      What a crock!  Not in my lifetime mate.

      The laws are not “archaic” as you say. They are current and present and in the best interests of the individual to be adopted.

      “Social research” was very likely the foundation of the idea behind removing Aboriginal children from their parents in the first place

      Since when has any psychological research been credible? And i note a distinct lack of specifics regarding such research.

      Further; it’s not society excluding gays from parenting. Gays do this all by themselves or are we so progressive we’ve mastered nature?

      The only thing here I agree with here is that gays have no rights to children.

      Reply

    • DJ says:

      09:42am | 29/06/10

      Oh please they can pay a surragate, or what about the one’s that had a child in a hetero relationship and are now in a same sex relationship, should we take the children away from them? what about the ones who go to a fertility clinic bcause believe me there are a lot of fertility places that allow gays to get inseminated

    • Steely Dan says:

      11:58am | 29/06/10

      @ TC

      “Since when has any psychological research been credible?”
      So depression isn’t real? Bi-polar disorder is something made up by latte-sipping trendies wearing skivvies and berets? 

      “Further; it’s not society excluding gays from parenting. Gays do this all by themselves or are we so progressive we’ve mastered nature?”
      Society is excluding gay couples from adopting by supporting governments who uphold the ban.  By your reasoning, should infertile couples be excluded?  Nature says they can’t reproduce…

    • Tim says:

      12:33pm | 29/06/10

      Steely Dan,
      so being gay is the same as having a disease or a genetic defect?

    • Steely Dan says:

      12:53pm | 29/06/10

      @ Tim

      No.  Why would you say that?

    • TheRealDave says:

      12:18am | 29/06/10

      Will Homosexual couples have to wait in line with the thousands of already waiting heterosexual couples waiting to adopt children? Or will they get rushed to the start of the line because they are ‘special’ because they are a minority??

      We all know that about 35 seconds after the law is passed some advocacy group is going to sue for discrimination because they were forced to wait in line with everyone else. Then a few minutes after that another advocacy group will sue because a gay couple missed out to a hetero couple in adopting a child - regardless of the facts or well being of the child.

      Its a circle of life kinda thing.

      Reply

    • Jeremy says:

      10:46am | 29/06/10

      “sue for discrimination because they were forced to wait in line with everyone else”.

      No, discrimination would be if you were unable to join the line because of your sexual preference.  This is about allowing them to join that line.

    • jen says:

      01:58am | 29/06/10

      so heterosexual couples who cannot conceive for whatever reason should be denied the ability to adopt as well? since they were excluded from parenting too, by their anatomy as opposed to society? what about women who choose to remove their ovaries due to genetic predisposition to cancer? did they forego their rights to be mothers in making such a “decision” ?

      Reply

    • BT says:

      11:37am | 29/06/10

      Why do people who cannot conceive naturally think they have some “right” to get a child by whatever means possible? Sometimes you just have to grow up and accept that you don’t get everything in life that you want.

    • DJ says:

      12:08pm | 29/06/10

      BT but what if both parents die and there are no family left to raise the child? should they go to an orphanage?

    • Joe says:

      08:52am | 29/06/10

      There are under 20 children adopted out in Qld each year. There is a HUGE waiting list of extremely vetted couples waiting. It goes against logic to open up the waiting list to add a new category of couple, and a very controversial one at that.

      The effect of this will be to further limit the number of adoptions. Those conservative enough to save their babies life and adopt it out would think twice if it could go to a gay couple. The government does nothing to increase adoptions by reducing the thousands of abortions each year and gay adoption is another step down this path.

      Reply

    • Pro-choicer says:

      10:21am | 29/06/10

      “It goes against logic to open up the waiting list to add a new category of couple”

      Joe, that is a value statement. It is not “logic”.

      “The government does nothing to increase adoptions by reducing the thousands of abortions each year”

      Oh, any intangiable opportunity to promote your compulsory birthist (aka “pro-life”) eh Joe? So what you are insinuating is that the governement should do “something”. What— fecund wombs ought to be appropriated as property of the state?  What an utterly repugnant and totalitarian concept.

      If there is anything that defies logic that you have reached the concluson that unplanned pregnancies are ever more likely to be terminated because of a misplaced fear that adoptive parents may be gay!  How bizarre.

    • Steely Dan says:

      12:13pm | 29/06/10

      @ Nicole

      I agree.  But we should also note that the onus is on those arguing for discrimination against gay couples to present a reason for the ban.

    • Scott Bryant says:

      12:33pm | 29/06/10

      I believe parenting is not about sexuality or the number of people involved. It’s about love, care, guidance, education and responsibility. These things transcend moral codes, gender roles, sexual orientation. Things very basic to us all and innate to us no matter who we are or how we live our live, or who we love.

      Reply

    • Dallas says:

      10:18pm | 07/07/10

      It is amazing how far people have detracted from the point in trying to argue their divergent views to this article. I can only assume these people have not read the article or have very, very poor comprehension skills. The major point of the article is that children already reside with gay individuals. The issue is that they are being deprived of the legal benefits and inheretence possibilities of the spouse of their current parent, just because they are not the gender the law currently requires them to be. The fact is that gay couples can have children in a multitude of ways. The Bill will not be changing much else other than the legal rights of those children and the oppotunities they would recieve from the spouse.

      Reply

    • Lynae says:

      09:06pm | 09/07/10

      I understand that it must be frustrating for gays couples who want to adopted, and i personally have no issue with it.

      But just for one second before you get angry think about the fact that single straight people are not allowed to adopt children.

      I’m single, and straight and I can’t have children of my own, so my only option is adoption, I’m not allowed to because I don’t have a partner.  How unfair is that.

      Gay and Lesbain couple, can have a surrogate, they have other way of having children.

      So stop complaining please, it make me so angry and upset, to read articles like this, knowing that I only have ONE option and its being denied to me.

      Reply

    • HAL says:

      06:28pm | 16/07/10

      The article says “The basic rationale behind this Bill is that the sexuality of prospective parents should not be a determinative factor when it comes to protecting the welfare of children.”  That is what is wrong with the whole Bill and why its rejection is paramount.  Children have a right to a mother and a father - this Bill deliberately destroys that right and subverts the needs of children to the desires of some adults. 

      The Bill also enshrines that both motherhood and fatherhood is irrelevant as two women ‘mothers’ dispenses with the need for a father and two men ‘fathers’ dispesnes with the need for a mother.  Very dangerous territory here.

      How can you claim that children currently raised by two men or two women are ‘well adjusted’ when they have been deprived of a mother or a father in their upbringing.  They already start at a disdvantage and are being dealt a positive injustice.

      As a father, this Bill is a personal attack on me and I will fight it.

      Reply

    • Mary says:

      05:12pm | 30/08/10

      Survey on Adoption Amendment (Same Sex Couples) Bill 2010.

      HAVE YOUR SAY!
      Just visit: http://2d.homeunix.com/couples/
      and tell us what you think.

      Reply

    • Leonie says:

      07:35pm | 14/09/10

      We are missing the most important point in this debate…the children. Children not only deserve a mother and a father but it is their right to have both

      Reply
 
Comment

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Anthony Sharwood

antsharwood 26 May 12 09:27PM

Dementor doing a good job for sweden #sbseurovision

Anthony Sharwood

antsharwood 26 May 12 09:11PM

Ukraine song pinches chord progression from The Verve's Bittersweet Symphony. Fo real #sbseurovision

Anthony Sharwood

antsharwood 26 May 12 09:00PM

RT @GerardDaffy: @antsharwood all the talk over there is the grannies will win.they entered to get a church built,feelgood story

Anthony Sharwood

antsharwood 26 May 12 08:57PM

These peole insult my grandmothjer, who was born in minsk, belarus #sbseurovision

See all tweets

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

We don’t deserve this huge, exciting scientific project

by Claire Connelly

41

We don’t deserve this huge, exciting scientific project

I’d like to be able to say that sharing the world’s largest radio telescope with South Africa…

Mining money talks the loudest in Australian politics

by Laurie Oakes

60

Mining money talks the loudest in Australian politics

When North Queensland Liberal MP George Christensen got the idea of launching a new political organisation…

Please enter your password

by Lucy Kippist

39

Please enter your password

Help! I’ve succumbed to a crippling modern illness that can strike at any moment. Symptoms include:…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

Michael S says:

"A teacher at Geelong Grammar had criticised her for using words that were too long, which had left her confused and had made her doubt her ability to write essays. She became ''quite distressed'' when her English marks began to fall." I can sympathise. My scholastic mentors conveyed to me a causal relationship… [read more]

From: Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone

Change Up! says:

I have no problem paying my taxes. As a single, childless person on a very decent income, I can afford it and not have my life severely altered. Plus I understand that my taxes paying for things like schools, childcare and infrastructure is ultimately a good thing. A better community is better for me… [read more]

Light weight

Gentle jabs to the ribs

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not… Read more

243 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter

Subscribe to The Punch RSS feed