My kids have two mums and they’re just fine, thank you

Nathan says:

05:52am | 28/02/12

@Erick

“Lesbians aren’t special, angelic people who never hit anyone. They’re just people, like all of us.”
I think your last line actually confirmed exactly the point of the article that they want to be treated like all of us.

I was tempted to go on a bit of a rant about your comments surrounding the statistics and all that but i suspect your point was not anti gay, but rather critiquing the research which if you are correct looks pretty dodgy

Timmy says:

05:58am | 28/02/12

Come now Erick, you know that one shining example of lesbian parents makes all studies and statistics meaningless.

Also the fact that on average children who are with their two natural parents (which a lesbian couple can never be) will do better is a lie because there are some bad heterosexual parents out there.

Sheldon says:

06:07am | 28/02/12

I don’t think you can compare gay parents to hetro parants. The number of hetro parants vastly out number gay parents. So of course surveys will show that there is less sexualy abuse in gay parents because they make up a minority of a minority.

Kipling says:

06:10am | 28/02/12

“Lesbians aren’t special, angelic people who never hit anyone. They’re just people, like all of us.”

Aboslutely Eric, which supports the article better than any statistical mish mash. Clearly, a wide range of “people” are able to demonstrate effective, caring, nurturing and loving parental relationships. That would seem to be the ultimate point.

Conversely, All kinds of people, regardless of their sexuality appear capable of causing hurt in a wide variety of methods.

That’s people for ya…

Tanya Robinson says:

06:44am | 28/02/12

Dear Erick,

since we’re on the subject of accurate reporting I would like to point out that the article was referring to the incidence of child abuse in lesbian relationships. Not spousal abuse. So if you’re going to criticize the author’s accuracy, please be considerate enough to reference relevant facts yourself.

Yours sincerely,

Tanya

Erick says:

08:44am | 28/02/12

@Tanya Robinson - It’s difficult to do a thorough search of all the literature in a few minutes before heading off to work.

During that brief time, I didn’t find any specific references to abuse of children by lesbian parents. What I did find was still relevant, since partner abuse is often correlated with child abuse.

My point stands: The idea that lesbian couples are somehow immune from the faults that plague other kinds of parents is bogus. They’re no better nor worse as far as I can tell.

TheBrad says:

09:32am | 28/02/12

This makes for an interesting read - http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Lesbian

gobsmack says:

09:33am | 28/02/12

@Erick
” It’s difficult to do a thorough search of all the literature in a few minutes before heading off to work.”
In other words, you didn’t have time to find some obscure study that supports your preconceived ideas.
But it didn’t stop you posting.

James1 says:

10:21am | 28/02/12

So you have no problem with them raising kids?

Erick says:

11:03am | 28/02/12

@James1 - “So you have no problem with them raising kids?”

I think that ideally male children should have at least one male parent, and female children should have at least one female parent. But apart from that, I see no inherent problem with gays raising children.

If only straight fathers had the right to raise their own children, I’d be happy enough. But heterosexual men are the only group systematically denied the right to have their own children.

Tim says:

11:11am | 28/02/12

Gobsmack,
“In other words, you didn’t have time to find some obscure study that supports your preconceived ideas.”

If it’s good enough for the author of the article then it should be good enough for the comments.

MarkS says:

11:39am | 28/02/12

In the end for me this is a moral question.

Men are fathers are not just sperm donors. Women are mothers are not just egg donors & incubators. Children deserve two parents, one mother & one father.

James1 says:

01:15pm | 28/02/12

I’d take that thought an extra step Erick, but instead of relating it to parents, I would use the word authority figure or example.  I think it is important for girls to have a strong relationship with a male authority figure and vice versa (assuming the example of manhood provided is positive).  My relationship with my own child has made me realise that I am the first man she will ever love, and that every man that she loves later in life will be compared to me.  If I set a good example, then deadbeats will be shown to be lacking.  If I don’t, then she could end up with some bastard who does other men a disservice.

I think it is the lack of access to positive male role models when they are young that makes so many women look for the wrong type of man.  I’m further sure this is linked to the lack of access many divorced men have to their daughters.

gobsmack says:

01:30pm | 28/02/12

@Tim
As is made clear in the article, the author’s views are informed by her personal first-hand experience. It is primarily an anecdotal account.  The mention of research is made in passing.
There is no suggestion that the author is unable to cite that research, however, that would be a matter for her to confirm.

LJ Dots says:

06:59pm | 28/02/12

@gobsmack. Ideally, I’d like to see two parents, both of good character and regardless of their sex raise a child, so on that I do agree with the author.

My disagreement is with the author leaning on uncited research as the bedrock beneath the anecdote. Without citation it has the same weight as statements such as ‘everyone agrees’ or ‘everyone knows’. Terms that, when read in any article, should be treated with suspicion.

Adrian says:

07:51pm | 28/02/12

@Erick,

... heterosexual men are the only group systematically denied the right to have their own children.

So you keep saying… over and over like a broken record. However, the facts don’t support your claim:

http://www.leadershipcouncil.org/1/pas/dv.html

But I’m sure that won’t stop you.

kat says:

05:21pm | 29/02/12

ok so im confused…so lesbians are the same as everyone else and i quote : “They’re just people, like all of us”    BUT not when they wish to be parents or have partnerships LIKE EVERYONE ELSE…....DUDE MAKE UP YOUR MIND…...

james says:

05:44pm | 29/02/12

those aren’t that bad.
You also haven’t given any stats on how they treat their children, nor have you given any information on the bias of your data.

VVS says:

06:47am | 28/02/12

Haha… I was thinking the same thing.

However Scout is clearly named after the character from To Kill a Mockingbird. I would have preferred Boo myself.

As for Corin… Corin Nemec? After all, Parker Lewis can’t lose, he just can’t…

Tubesteak says:

07:44am | 28/02/12

I agree

With names like that they’re bound to become arts students (parasites), hipsters (posers) or reality TV audiences

That’s hardly evidence of good parenting.

T-rev says:

08:06am | 28/02/12

Peter Griffin: Lois, Parker Lewis can’t lose. Don’t even *try* and make him lose ‘cause it’s just going to be that much more embarrassing for you when you realize that he can’t lose.
Chris Griffin: Would he win in a fight with Batman?

Peter Griffin: Well, Chris, think about what you’re saying; Parker Lewis *Can’t lose*. Heretofore, Batman can suck on that.

Chris Griffin: Suck on that? Suck on this; Tic-Tacs only have one and a half calories!

Peter Griffin: Well Played.

Chris Griffin: I love you, Dad.

Peter Griffin: I love you too, son.

Chrissy says:

09:13am | 28/02/12

@Super D seriously? your argument is that lesbians are not good parents because they give their children unusual names? Plenty of hetro couples give their kids weird names. Take Apple, Blue Ivy or any of Bob Geldorfs kids as examples. You seriously need a stronger argument than that.

Kiddo says:

10:12am | 28/02/12

@chrissy - giving examples of celebrity kids is irrelevent. Those people live on a different planet. How about some crazy names from suburbia? Anyone remember that poor kid called ‘Talula does the Hula?

Testfest says:

10:28am | 28/02/12

@Chrissy

Pretty sure Super D was joking. I think we can all agree that any parents who give their children ridiculous names deserve to be mocked, regardless of their race, religion, ethnicity or sexual orientation.

My personal favourites for stupid names are:
Boy:  Talon
Girl:  Em-a (pronounced ‘Emdasha’. Yes, this actually happened.)

Timothy says:

10:33am | 28/02/12

When did DOCS take you away for being called Super D?

Sandy says:

11:52am | 28/02/12

I find it amazing that the only response is an article published in 1991 more than 20 years ago and you had nothing more current to rant about. I also find that the very people who are so concerned about children being raised by same sex couples are the very first people to ridicule and attack innocent children. As for the comment that single heterosexual men are not allowed to raise children what research is this based on. Your own singular, unfortunate bad experiences or from talking to millions of single dads out there. People let’s not pretend to be concerned about the children and hide behind it, why not just make it about the real issue which is outright discrimination against same sex couples, because you do not understand it and fear what you couldn’t possibly understand. We do not tell you how to live your lives, who you can and can’t marry, how to raise your children, please don’t think or assume to be qualified to tell us how to lead our lives or raise our children.

S.L says:

12:46pm | 28/02/12

Super D you have my vote for comment of the week…..........

Reg says:

02:41pm | 28/02/12

Super D should change his name to Parker Lewis

Donny says:

02:45pm | 28/02/12

@Sandy - People let’s not pretend to be concerned about the children and hide behind it, why not just make it about the real issue which is outright discrimination against same sex couples, because you do not understand it and fear what you couldn’t possibly understand. We do not tell you how to live your lives, who you can and can’t marry, how to raise your children, please don’t think or assume to be qualified to tell us how to lead our lives or raise our children.

Love the way you lump everybody together.  I have been with my wife for 30 years and shock horror - some of our best friends are gay couples.  As a matter of fact, some of their relationships are only a few years behind our own.  More of a shock for you - we are also friends with lesbian couples and hetero couples, so do not presume that everybody does not understand or fears the unknown. I would never presume to tell our friends how to live their lives and I find the above section of your comment rather offensive.

Sandy says:

07:26am | 29/02/12

@Donny
It just goes to show I should be careful how I word things when I am getting all worked up about things. When I said people Donny I was not referring to straight people everywhere, but to super D and a few of the comments I have read. I have many heterosexual friends who are married and are supportive and understand my relationship completely. I apologize if it offended you, it does however needed to be read in context and who I replied to.

Lauren says:

03:18pm | 28/02/12

Enkl: so basically you’re happy for heterosexual couples to have outside help to have children, but not homosexual couples?

And the only reason you think homosexuals shouldn’t have kids is due to their inability to conceive naturally.

Even though technically both are the same circumstances, given that neither (for specific reasons) can conceive a child naturally.

I would like to see the evidence that shows heterosexual couple households are more beneficial than homosexual couple households though. There have been countless studies on single parent households versus couple households, but can’t seem to locate any that touch on a two mums/two dads versus mum & dad. If you can find it and show me, I may take on board some of what you’re saying.

Enkl says:

07:02am | 29/02/12

@Lauren

As I wrote initially at 7:31am yesterday morning ...

“Nature’s normal family model is a heterosexual couple raising their biological kids. Variations are fine, but they are suboptimal.”

I did not say that same sex couples should never raise children - just that it’s suboptimal because its not natural. I would therefore oppose homosexual adoption. IVF is not as clear, but I’m not comfortable with it.

Rednax says:

06:45am | 28/02/12

Wazza, I’m 25 and raised by lesbians. My parents also had different roles in my upbringing and I turned out fine. I think I’m pretty well-adjusted thank you very much - I’m no different to the adults I know who we’re raised by single parents or grandparents or adoptive parents or both biological parents.

I went to school, I did sport. Mostly it was as care-free and enjoyable for me as it was for the kids of other family types. I coped fine and so did everybody else.

The only people to ever try and make a “socio political statement” of my personal childhood and experience has been straight strangers. My parents just loved me.

really? says:

06:53am | 28/02/12

“take these kids out of the cafes of iner city Sydney, put them in a school or a sports club and see how they cope with having same sex parents”

So - your argument is that same sex couples shouldn’t have children, because parents in the suburbs are bigots who teach their children the same views? Solid point….

really? says:

06:54am | 28/02/12

How do you know that? The father might have the kids every weekend for all you know…

really? says:

06:58am | 28/02/12

Wanting equal rights for gays is “hetero-phobia”?? I guess all those people who wanted equal rights for Aboriginal people were “anti-white”?

Tanya Robinson says:

07:10am | 28/02/12

Wazza, having been a parent for 10 years now I’m inclined to agree with you that parents do tend to play different roles. My kids Dad is the main breadwinner and I take care of the house. Very traditional so far. Yet when it comes to making family decisions and strict discipline, well that’s me. So while I can agree with you about the different parenting roles, the so called father/mother roles that many of us would have grown up with, I just don’t see that really mattering if both the parents are men or women. Same sex couples will develop their own unique mix of who does what just as opposite couples do. It’s really just about sharing the burden.
As for the comment, ’ take these kids out of the cafes of iner city Sydney, put them in a school or a sports club and see how they cope with having same sex parents,’ I’d say that has more to do with the way society views them than the parenting itself. Giving more credibility to same sex relationships through legalizing gay marriage would only help.

Beth says:

07:25am | 28/02/12

Yes, Wazza. Allllllllll these lesbians are having children just so they can throw it in the faces of conservative people. That’s the only reason why they’d do it, because, god forbid anyone would like to have the right to have children and raise them in a loving home.

Why are you so personally threatened by this? No one is asking you to have children with a man. Why don’t you concern yourself with things that matter, like spreading tolerance to your children by modelling positive behaviours and attitudes? There’s your psychological issue - hatred and intolerance flowing down from parents. Kids are sponges and pick most things up from their parents.

Enkl says:

08:21am | 28/02/12

@Rednax : “I’m pretty well-adjusted”.

How do you know that? How might your sexual identity be different, had the values in your upbringing been different? How might your parents’ attitudes to adult males have affected your own?

Your parenting was a big part of who you became. You cannot know who you might have become in a different family. Because you’re OK, does not mean that might not have been better or worse.

Even if your contentions were knowable, and true, that does not undermine the evolutionary/natural principle that a heterosexual family is the optimal environment for raising children.

kate says:

08:49am | 28/02/12

“take these kids out of the cafes of iner city Sydney, put them in a school or a sports club and see how they cope with having same sex parents.”

Uh, hello?  They do go to school.  They do play sport.  They’re perfectly normal kids, with perfectly normal parents.  That’s the point. 

And yes, two parents can and do play different roles.  But what does that have to do with what equipment they have in their pants?  One parent might be better at reading bedtime stories, and one might be better and coaching soccer.  One might be firmer with discipline and one might be better and car pooling and organising the social life.  One might be the breadwinner and one might take on full-time parenting.  All of the above can be done by parents of either gender.

Lauren says:

09:20am | 28/02/12

@ Enkl - are you for real? If we’re playing this game - how might she have turned out if she grew up in another state? Or if she had 1 extra or 1 less sibling? Or if she got sent to a different school? Or if she grew up allergic to peanuts?

Any of these things may have made her a different person to who she is today. What a stupid statement to make.

Xar says:

09:30am | 28/02/12

even if you can’t accept that two genders are not needed the logic being used here is just ridiculously false. You are assuming absolutes here ie: that no matter what hetero is better - well my own childhood with hetero parents was hellishly abuisive and a stable gay couple couldn’t have failed to do better. The argument rests on the idea that “all other things being equal, hetero is best” - but families don’t work like that, some have less kids, some have more, some have personality clashes, some are poorer or richer ect. we know that the things which make a family work do not rely on the gender of the parents, they are present in gay couples parenting just as much as hetero couples parenting. If you choose to argue hetero is better so gay people should not have kids, why don’t you choose to argue that only people who are mega wealthy can have kids because they can afford to provide opportunities that the less wealthy can’t? No ski holiday, no kids! Heck, maybe we should look at the research stating that families are happiest if they have two girls and start insisting that families can only have two girls because it is THE statisticly better gender/number for a happy family - see the logic fail yet?

Another Chris says:

10:36am | 28/02/12

@Lauren, Really, how is it stupid? I beg to differ as I find what you say ridiculous. How can you even begin to think that what state they’re bought up in or how many siblings they have connects to having same sex parents or not? Wow.
Enkl has a good point. How do we know Rednax is well adjusted? Just on their Saying so? That’s like someone who is taking experimental medicine saying they feel fine only to not know, feel or see the side effects. Personally, I think there are side effects. Do I know for sure? No. Do these parents know for sure? No. But some lovey story isn’t going to convince me one way or the other.

Enkl says:

10:43am | 28/02/12

@Lauren

Yes, those differences are unknowable too. My point was that Rednax cannot argue from his/her experience. That point stands.

Lauren says:

11:01am | 28/02/12

Ok Another Chris - Um, YES, you should take her word for it. Because she would know more than you, stranger on the internet. Would you ask the same thing to any other person who claimed the same thing and was raised in a heterosexual environment?

And yes, it was ridiculous because I was using the same logic as Enkl was. And that is “how do you know that if you weren’t raised in a different environment, that you wouldn’t have turned out a different way”.

Lauren says:

11:09am | 28/02/12

Enkl - so your point is that because Rednax can’t tell what her life would have been like had she been born to a heterosexual couple, she can’t argue her point? For real?

So are we happy to put the shoe on the other foot then? As you aren’t aware of how your life would be had you been raised by a gay couple, then technically you can’t argue your point either?

Austin 3:16 says:

11:12am | 28/02/12

Enkl,
—Because you’re OK, does not mean that might not have been better or worse.—

That’s irrelevant the claim was “pretty well-adjusted” not that the upbringing was the best possible.

—the evolutionary/natural principle that a heterosexual family is the optimal environment for raising children—

There is no such principle.

Another Chris says:

11:39am | 28/02/12

Once again Lauren, you miss the point. What I’m saying is whether I’m raised in NSW or WA has no bearing on who I am. Not in the same magnitude as who raises me as a child. You’re not following the same logic and Enkl. The point they’re trying to make relates directly to parental environment and nothing else. There are no parallels that can be drawn in your analogy. No, I shouldn’t take her word for it. She has a motive and agenda to push. An external observer without any agenda or motive is whats required.  Saying you’re “fine” is just that, a word. Not a true reflection. When it comes to the raising of a child, I won’t accept that anything other than the norm is optimal unless proven unequivocally wrong.

Lauren says:

12:36pm | 28/02/12

You won’t accept anything but the ‘norm’ when it comes to raising children?

Please, inform me of what the ‘norm’ is?

I already know for you it includes having a mother & a father, but having those doesn’t necessarily mean your upbringing will be ‘normal’, so I’d like to hear what other factors of upbringing fits into your neat little box.

Siblings? Pets? Public school or private school? Growing up in the country or the city? All these things affect the upbringing of a child, so to say that the ONLY thing that will influence your ability to be mentally & emotionally well-adjusted is having a mother & a father raising you is complete rubbish.

Also, how exactly would you like her to “prove” to you that she is happy with her upbringing and adult self? You say words are just words, so….

Enkl says:

01:07pm | 28/02/12

@Lauren
“... so your point is that because Rednax can’t tell what her life would have been like had she been born to a heterosexual couple, she can’t argue her point?”

No, my point is that Rednax cannot argue from his/her experience. He/she can adduce other arguments; just not ones from personal experience.

My argument that gay parenting is suboptimal is not based on experience, and is therefore not affected by my razor.

My argument is based on the natural principle that same sex couples cannot produce children.

Austin 3:16 says:

01:25pm | 28/02/12

—the natural principle that same sex couples cannot produce children—

Neither can single people (unless hermaphroditic) or infertile heterosexual couples.  Yet there are single parents, parents by adoption, blended famillies etc.

The issue is not the ability to produce children, but the ability to raise children.

Like most of your comments to date this one is irrelevant to the issue at hand.

Another Chris says:

01:29pm | 28/02/12

Lauren, what I am saying is- the one consistent element in the upbringing of that child will be it’s parents. Yes, there will be other factors that influence how they think, what they think and what they believe but I believe their core foundation, how they handle situations, sexuality etc. is based around who raises them. The norm starts with a Mum and a Dad in a loving environment. The Norm would be “average”. Average Income, average Mortgage, average education for whatever country they’re in. Those things culminate to what I believe is in the spectrum of optimal. I’m not saying there are variations out there that vary in a child’s raising (unique experiences etc- Below average would still be “fine” but not ideal.). The Biological norm is Heterosexual. This is not my opinion, this is fact.

Lauren says:

01:30pm | 28/02/12

So are you going to apply this same principle to a hetereosexual couple who can’t naturally have children? Even though the kids grow up in a straight parent household, because they were born via IVF it means they can’t argue their point because they weren’t conceived “naturally”?

Because if you’re talking SOLELY on the ability of people to have children without any outside help, then you should be including these kids in your argument.

Enkl says:

01:58pm | 28/02/12

@Lauren

“So are you going to apply this same principle to a hetereosexual couple who can’t naturally have children?”

No, here is the logic:

A. Only heterosexual couples can produce children.
B. Some heterosexual couples are barren.
C. Heterosexual families are the optimal environment for children.

A entails C, B notwithstanding.

Austin 3:16 says:

03:52pm | 28/02/12

— Heterosexual families are the optimal environment for children—

Based on what ? Other than your imagination.

Sammy says:

04:10pm | 28/02/12

“Enkl says:09:21am | 28/02/12

@Rednax : “I’m pretty well-adjusted”.

How do you know that? How might your sexual identity be different, had the values in your upbringing been different? How might your parents’ attitudes to adult males have affected your own?”

So because Rednax had gay parents, this will affect their sexual identity, that Rednax is more or less likely to be gay because of their parent? And attitude to males? Good lord! What a generalised assumption that all lesbians are anti-men!!

I was raised in a single parent house-hold by my mother. Years ago, this same arguement was being waged over single mothers - that they needed a man, that they couldn’t provide the right upbringing for their children. But that arguement has been proved wrong, so the conservatives have moved into gay families. I am looking forward to the day when society shows these scared people that something alternative to the ‘norm’ isn’t neccessarily bad.

Another Chris says:

04:23pm | 28/02/12

@Austin 3:16- based on the the last 6000 years of society development

Another Chris says:

04:24pm | 28/02/12

@Austin 3:16- based on the the last 6000 years of society development

Timinane says:

05:18pm | 28/02/12

6,000 years where during that time we used to sell off daughters as brides, send our darling children into mines and up chimneys. Until about 200 years ago considered them evil and wicked. Not to mention beating them.

This is optimal in your world?
If so I don’t think you understand what modern society considers optimal.

Enkl says:

05:39pm | 28/02/12

@Sammy

“What a generalised assumption that all lesbians are anti-men!!”

I did not imply that lesbians are misandrists, only that their attitude toward adult males differs from that of their straight sisters. I also implied that parental values in the area of sexuality are highly likely to influence those of their children.

“Years ago, this same arguement was being waged over single mothers - that they needed a man, that they couldn’t provide the right upbringing for their children. But that arguement has been proved wrong ...”

Single parent families are also sub-optimal, but are often the best alternative available. I don’t think that’s been “proved wrong”, also there has been no imperative in churches for single mothers to remarry since the time of the apostles.

Another Chris says:

05:53pm | 28/02/12

Timinane: You say that like it happened everywhere. One thing still remains core: Man and Woman, regardless of what the culture in society was at that time.

Austin 3:16 says:

07:40pm | 28/02/12

Another Chris,

I realise that you’ve already been comprehensively owned but further that’s only true of some limited cultures. Other cultures have different standards. As an example how do you know that the Polynesian fluid adoption practices aren’t a better methodology ?

Secondly how are the past 6000 years relevant to 21st century practices?

Another Chris says:

12:23am | 29/02/12

Austin 3:16. Love the arrogance. I’ll continue for the sake of the discussion. I prefer not to see it as a battle of one-upping but I guess it’s unavoidable.
I did a bit of research on “fluid adoption” and the polynesian understanding of sexuality. Interesting. I guess I look at the majority of society that that have traditionally subscribed to heterosexual couple parenting as the common framework. China, India the US, Europe, S.E Asia (excluding some islands) etc. I guess we could say, a solid majority of the world

Second part: I guess the question is, how are the last 6000 years not relevant to now? We are a product of our history, of the lessons learnt (i.e the stolen generation), of what works and what doesn’t work.  We are constantly learning and looking at history to direct our future.. I don’t really understand the point you’re making in asking that question. Perhaps you can elaborate?

Sarah says:

01:36pm | 29/02/12

@Enkl - so given your response to Rednax, is your point that nobody can claim to be well adjusted? Or is it only the children of gay parents who are ill-equipped to make such a claim? Presumably, then, you would argue that no study could ever be done that could determine the relative outcomes of being raised in gay vs straight families, because no child of gay parents can legitimately claim to be well-adjusted? Surely it’s not up to you (or anybody else) to discredit somebody’s perception of their own life experience?

Austin 3:16 says:

04:23pm | 29/02/12

Hey Another Chris,

Do some research on polygamy etc too I don’t know if your two heterosexual parents model will stand up as the majority of the world.

I have a sinus infection at the moment, so I’m taking anti-biotics - they’ve probably been around for 50 years or so. Thus a diagnosis of my medical condition would ignore some thousand years of medical practice and look at the results of the last few years.

As has already been pointed out some past practices regarding the raising of children are appalling.

Its what’s working NOW in the 21st century that matters. And there’s nothing to show that same - sex parenting isn’t working.

Nick says:

07:23am | 28/02/12

If Jacqui does her job properly, her children won’t need to.

Mayday says:

07:33am | 28/02/12

I have had to deal with such an issue in my workplace. 
I work in early childhood and have over the last seven years cared for two girls who had lesbian parents and at times were quite distressed at not having a father like all the other children at the centre.

The fathers of these girls were also gay and lived in rural Australia visiting two or three times a year when in Sydney.

From talking with the mothers the men had no emotional, social or financial input, they merely supplied the sperm.

Absent fathers do cause distress to children and it seemed to me that all of the adults involved cared more for their cause than the welfare of their children.

Bill says:

07:56am | 28/02/12

Nick, Jacqui is incapable of doing her job properly if she deliberately chooses to deprive her kids of their father.

MarkS says:

08:20am | 28/02/12

Newsflash
Gay parent thinks they are ok.

Really! yea right, would not have expected any different opinion from the writer. It is not as if she will ever be willing to admit that her choices are not the best for her children.

The simple fact of the matter is that children do best with both a male & female role model. There are many valid studies showing that children without a good male role model have issues that develop as they become teenagers. But I suspect without knowing of any valid studies to back me up that having two gay parents is better than having only one hetro parent.

I view the writer in much the same way I would view someone who was unable to sustain a long time relationship who decided to have a child as a single parent. Or for that matter who decided to leave a non abusive relationship that had produced children. As a person who is willing to put their own selfish wishes above the welfare of their children.

Bev says:

08:44am | 28/02/12

Mayday says:08:33am | 28/02/12

Absent fathers do cause distress to children and it seemed to me that all of the adults involved cared more for their cause than the welfare of their children.

I must endorse this comment.  I really do get the impression that articles like this which keep popping up as poster examples are just that.  There have been a number of such poster examples implodng in a spectacular manner in the past. It seems to be more about the couple and their cause than the children.

Mack says:

08:58am | 28/02/12

Exactly. How do they go at ‘father’s day’ - or is the mainstream eventually going to be forced to change it to ‘parent’s day’, just to keep this vocal minority happy?

LMA says:

09:09am | 28/02/12

MarkS, that is simply not true. I love how people keep saying: “It is a fact that…” while it is not! Research has never pointed out children with same-sex parents do any less ok in school, socially, emotionally or whatever. In fact, the opposite has often been published.

I completely agree with the author. Anti-equal rights people make up these arguments to not have to say bluntly that they think gay-people are just less than straight-people.

morrgo says:

09:23am | 28/02/12

She can tell them, I hope, that they at least grew up in a family with two adults in a loving relationship.  That way they are well ahead of kids growing up in dysfunctional or violent hetero-parent families, or brought up by single mothers. 

Being a father I hope fathers do matter, but I don’t think we are totally irreplaceable.

MarkS says:

10:35am | 28/02/12

@LMA
“Research has never pointed out children with same-sex parents do any less ok in school, socially, emotionally or whatever. In fact, the opposite has often been published.”

I stated that studies have shown that not having role models from both genders is a problem. These studies looked at single parent families.

Furthermore I admitted that I was unaware of any studies that compared single parent families to same sex families. But was willing to accept that a child will be better off with two same sex parents then one parent.

But I do not accept that there are any valid studies that show that there is no negative impact on having two same sex parents instead of two different sex parents. Unfortunately the entire social studies field is full of rubbish studies done with an agenda.

At Work says:

11:06am | 28/02/12

Good god, you people drag out the cliche answers time and time again.

What about widows raising children? What about Single Parents?

My Ex-husband walked away, remarried and now ignores the fact that he has a daughter. She went right through school without a father.
But, to your logic, this is OK, because I am straight. If I was gay, it would be catastrophic.

Let me tell you- I would rather have been able to tell her that she had two parents who loved her than one who loved her and one who couldn’t get off his ar$e long enough to even make a phone call- whether that was two women or one of each.

Oh, and before the Boys start finding an angle to blame me: he always knew where she was, he’s always had access: phone numbers addresses, family members details, etc. The door was always open. Some men just don’t want to walk through it.

VVS says:

07:00am | 28/02/12

Agree.

But it is no different from a lot of single parent families in that it is missing a mother/father figure. The single parent may be divorced or widowed.

Is it ideal for the child? No. But so many other situations aren’t either. And there are a lot of hetero parents who are terrible parents.

Would I have liked to have grown up without my mum? No. Without my dad? Of course not. But if I didn’t have a choice I still would have been okay with only one of them.

The children will survive. The world will not end.

Emma says:

06:41am | 28/02/12

This is not about marriage and it is not about religion either this is about children.
Not everyone that has doubts about gay parents is religious.

Considering you demand tolerance in your post you dont seem very tolerant towards other opinions either.

Eleanor says:

07:49am | 28/02/12

Demanding tolerance of intolerance for the sake of tolerance is just stupid.

perplexed says:

08:44am | 28/02/12

if it was abotu the children, t hen perhaps we should be looking at heterosexual people that have children, in abusive situations, who are not capable of giving these children a loving stable home, and look around you there are WAY more of these than there are same sex couples.  THe only reason we concentrate on same sex couple is not because of the children, but we use that chestnut to mask out homophobia.

ronny jonny says:

09:01am | 28/02/12

@Emma, if you re-read the article you will find it is about gay marriage and using the tired old argument that children shouldn’t be raised by gay couples because it is bad for them, therefore gay couples shouldn’t be allowed to marry.
I am very tolerant of other opinions as long as they are correct. If they were correct I would agree with them so they can’t be right can they? (tongue in cheek, I think thats from a Robin Williams movie)

Loxy says:

09:02am | 28/02/12

Emma, gay couples have been having children for a long time and will continue to do so whether they are allowed to marry your argument is simply not valid.

In fact, allowing gay couples with children to marry can only benefit the kids as it will probably give them more of a sense of stability and family.

David says:

10:40am | 28/02/12

@Elanor

The intolerant demanding tolerance of their intolerance is bigotry. The intolerant will claim that intolerance of their intolerance is bigotry, such as the homophobes claiming those that speak out against their homophobia are bigoted (There have been punch articles making this claim), but this is just them throwing around words to justify their hatred.

Steve M says:

03:19pm | 29/02/12

you want to discuss bigotry, what about your attitude to older parents as shown by your posts on the subject on this same site? Cmon, you wont turn old if you see an old person! Dont be scared! Do you fear being overrun by thousands of older people buying up all of the diapers and strollers? Lol, where is the tolerance you cry out for towards the gay? Oh, thats right. Tolerance is only for those that YOU support.

LeonT says:

07:49am | 28/02/12

Two parents raising their children is a social construct, not a natural one.

Enkl says:

08:30am | 28/02/12

@LeonT

It is both natural and social: Natural in that babies are made in that context; but social thereafter. However, social constructs are also natural and this one in particular has played a major role in our evolution and development.

Hanzel says:

08:42am | 28/02/12

Haha, a social construct only in the lecture theatre.

Agree, Enkl, I used to believe that gays were born that way but as new evidence arrives it points to environmental and cultural factors having a huge impact, e.g. several gay people stating that they chose to be gay, numerous gay people converting to straight relationships, and the lack of any scientific evidence supporting the ‘born that way’ theory.

I think the causes of gayness need more research before the State makes the choice to deny adopted children a father or mother.

LMA says:

10:04am | 28/02/12

“The cause of gayness”? Are you kidding me? Is it bad to be gay? Would it be bad if children raised by same-sex couples would have a higher ‘chance’  to be gay? I think it is interesting (and disturbing) that you think that they should first “find what is causing people to be gay”. Also, sexuality is nowadays mostly seen as a ‘scale’  e.g. from 1-7, if a person was once mostly attracted to the same sex, this will not exclude them from ever feeling attracted to someone of the opposite sex and vice versa. But I guess this is a whole different debate.

kate says:

10:14am | 28/02/12

“several gay people stating that they chose to be gay, numerous gay people converting to straight relationships, and the lack of any scientific evidence supporting the ‘born that way’ theory.”

Care to provide any support whatsoever for these assertions, or are you completely making it up?

“I think the causes of gayness need more research”

And what, pray tell, are the causes of straightness?

Hanzel says:

10:24am | 28/02/12

@ LMA, no, being gay isn’t bad at all. But, it’s the 21st century, I’m astounded that some aren’t ready to find out more about what influences our sexual identities….that’s right, astounded. It feels a bit anti-science, sadly.

LMA says:

10:44am | 28/02/12

As a biomedical scientist I can tell you that you will be astounded by what we don’t know. In my opinion, money should not go to useless research into ‘the cause’ of a sexuality (be that straight or gay) but rather let us focus (and thus spend funding) on things that are actually causing problems in society.

Enkl says:

11:04am | 28/02/12

@Hanzel

Psychs used to regard same sex attraction as a pathology, and had theories about its causes. For example, it was widely suggested that having an emotionally distant father was a big factor. Research was done, and largely supported their theories.

Then in the 1960s the gay lobby found its voice and it became politically incorrect to even think that same sex attraction might be a pathology, much less to do research into its causes. On the other hand, there has been plenty of research trying to prove that sexual preference is innate! It’s a bit like the CAGW scam - lots of funding to support the myth, but none to question it. It’s another case of politics trumping science.

Austin 3:16 says:

08:00pm | 28/02/12

Hanzel,

It take it you’ve never heard of the Kinsey scale then ? I wonder also how you’d categorise the differences in brain structure of gay vs hetro sheep ?
http://endo.endojournals.org/content/145/2/478.full.pdf+html

Is that a choice that the sheep have made /

Snooze says:

09:46am | 01/03/12

@Enkl your pseudo science and pseudo social science masked in technical language is absolutely hilarious.  Your points are narrow, poorly researched and rarely make any sense.  You repeatedly twist corrupted “scientific” information to match your personal views and then shout down other people’s opinions for not being scientific. Hilarious!

Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo says:

07:05am | 28/02/12

Agreed - its like she wanted her kids to be picked on at school

SM says:

09:57am | 28/02/12

@HHTL

But don’t you know, freaky names make the parents look “cool”, like they’re a celebrity

Rednax says:

06:55am | 28/02/12

This is a fair point, but completely irrelevant to gay parenting. I was raised by lesbians, but had more long term male role models and influences than any kid I knew growing up - there were grandparents, uncles, sports coaches, scout leaders… Not to mention, my biological father who is still a part of my life. I look to my peers and see so many dead-beat or absent dads, or single an divorced parents who put so much shit on their kids. All in all, I had one of the luckiest and most blessed childhoods a kid could hope for.

Jus like most straight parents, most gay parents know that a balance of gender influences is great for kids well being.

St. Michael says:

10:50am | 28/02/12

I’m glad you mentioned that, Rednax, because it was the main thing I was wondering about.

I think if lesbian couples (or indeed conversely gay couples who have a girl) are going to have an opposite-gender child, the lack of a same-gender parent has to be compensated for by either an alternative role model or—as you were very lucky to have—having the biological father as part of your life.  Men and women alike require both sides of the equation to grow properly.

Chris says:

11:19am | 28/02/12

@ Rednax
I think you make a good point and clearly your parents were concerned to ensure that you had such role models available.

However, the vocal minority on this topic do not always accept that a male (or female, situation reversed) role model is necessary.

That said, to me there is no real substitute for having a father and mother both present and involved.  You are right - sometimes that situation is a dismal failure and we see examples of this every day.  But I think that is the exception rather than the rule.  The people who have loving and present parents usually don’t talk about it - those who don’t are more likely to voice their discontent with the situation.

SteveKAG says:

01:15pm | 28/02/12

I think we need to explore everything from an even perspective, i for example had terrible parents and would have relished any sort of loving parents irrespective of sexual preferences.  So we can all find the ‘extraordinary’ things to look at.
However loving mum and dad in a stable environment, loving gay parents in a stable environment, loving lesbian parents in a stable environment…...None of it makes any difference in my view as long as the child is getting balanced time with the male or female ‘parent’ out of the home.  It is great you had Rednax that opportunity and we need to take your word that you are normal and balanced as i am sure you are.

My point is just ensuring that we look at what the child needs and not what we want as parents irrespective of sexual preference.

My duaghter is nearly 17, i have not been with her mum since she 4…..of course there are differences with her in growing up without a live in dad but she has always had access to her dad, he dad has always been there for her, her dad always see’s her etc….,  you get the point.

That is my only concern

VVS says:

07:07am | 28/02/12

This is probably the most awesome thing I have every read… I am an alien! Woo hoo!

More internets for you, good sir.

TChong says:

07:50am | 28/02/12

john
you need to end your post with the traditionalv
Otherwise some may think you serios.

KC and the unshine band says:

08:01am | 28/02/12

John’s comment makes the most sense of any that I’ve yet read on this article.

Children do best when they are raised by people who love them and have reasonable life-skills. It probably doesn’t even matter if they are aliens, to be honest.

I wonder what the freaky homophobe commenters here would say about het couples who have nannies to do the bulk of childrearing. Are those kids going to turn out OK because they have ‘biological parents’? What about if a gay couple had a straight nanny? What about straight couples with gay nannies?

Mia says:

01:06pm | 29/02/12

Sounds like this is a happy family, and lets face it it’s not just your parents that raise you -

“it take a village to raise a child”.

We don’t live in cocoons without influence from other sources - everything around has some sort of influence good and bad.

We should look to ourselves and make sure we’re doing the right thing by our own families before judging others.

D says:

08:45am | 28/02/12

Really?

So if one parent dies, how does that work?  I dont’ have any possibility of having a parental relationship with my father, he died when I was 6.  Who do I sue for this abuse of my human rights?

Tim says:

08:56am | 28/02/12

D,
You did have the possibility of a relationship with your father. Unfortunately he died.

A child raised by gay parents by definition does not have this possibility.

Bev says:

09:12am | 28/02/12

D says:09:45am | 28/02/12
So if one parent dies, how does that work?
Your comment is silly we are talking about a manufactured absence not a natural occurence

Richard M says:

10:07am | 28/02/12

I agree, TIm.  D and Bev seem unable to understand the difference between depriving a child of a father through the accidents of life, and deliberately doing so.

The righteous one says:

11:15am | 28/02/12

fair dinkum, what ‘s your nickname? two dicks? you cant get that stupid just playing with one

Emma says:

07:39am | 28/02/12

Can we please get away from the gay aspect and to the point of the article? This is not about who you prefer to be with. This is about bringing up children. And the arguments would be the same for single parents as they are for gays.

And all that most people here are saying is that the ideal makeup of a family are a loving mother and father and a stable home. That does not mean though that different setups have to be harmful to the education of the child. And so many families out there are different nowadays. And they work out fine. You can have bad parenting in any possible set up.

Peter says:

03:29pm | 28/02/12

Dude(tte), we are talking raising kids.  Not sexuality.

Emma says:

07:52am | 28/02/12

You obviously have not met my brother who is the most caring and loving dad ever - and playing an active role in the upbringing of his kids. And he for sure is not the only one.

Chris says:

08:12am | 28/02/12

I think the kind of dads you describe are now falling into the minority.  Myself and the majority of my peers relish the time we have with our families which, generally due to work committments, is less than any of us would like.

stephen says:

08:19am | 28/02/12

Single sex households, where a child is brought up by either sex, is not a refutation of either the Masculine, or the Feminine.
In such a household, such lines are blurred, obviously, but I do not think that its realization by a child will have detrimental psychological effects.
Such a difference will be apparent in the school yard, at the shops, and with friends.
Such single sex parents will have some explaining to do, that’s all.
Bit like a bicycle - just takes time to get used to ride.

SydneyGirl says:

01:40pm | 28/02/12

@Chris, if those kind of dads are falling into a minority, its possibly because they have grown up with feminism (no stats, I don’t have Erick’s 10 minutes of dodgy research) But its obvious men pitch in a lot more these days.

There is simply no way to predict what kind of family make up turns out a happy child.  An unhappy childhood was not that uncommon before we got all liberal with our mores.

Emma says:

08:28am | 28/02/12

At first I wanted to agree and generally I do as it makes sense. But those children that were interviewed based on the fact that they were donor-babies - I wonder if they consider that there was no option of biological parents. They would not exist if that particular person/couple didnt want to to have a donor-baby. So I would personally think that a phase of identity crisis during an otherwise loving childhood is better than not existing at all?

AdamC says:

10:14am | 28/02/12

Gherkin, that is a very thought-provoking comment. Both the ‘stolen generation’ and the ‘forgotten Australians’ act as something of an advertisement for not dismissing the importance of children’s connection to their biological and ancestral origins. However, proximity and knowledge of egg or sperm donors, and the lack of any living emotional connection to these donors, no matter how early in life, may change this.

In general, I regard a mother and father as the optimal care-givers to a child. This is not because some study or other concluded that same-sex raised children are marginally more (or less) likely to become drug-addled dropkicks. It is a matter of values and ideals. Having said that, if that ideal arrangement is not available, it seems foolish to respond by denying non-ideal couples the ability to have children using reproductive technologies. After all, while you don’t hear about it too often, we have a fertility crisis in Australia.

Personally, I am much more concerned about single spinsters having vanity babies than I am about same sex couples doing the same.

Hanzel says:

08:28am | 28/02/12

Yes, but a decent society would atleast attempt to fix the problem of one parent families rather than ‘double-down’ on the libertine sickness infecting the entire populace.

MarkS says:

11:50am | 28/02/12

@Hanzel
Hear Hear
Duty is a heavy as a mountain. There is something sick in a society that tries to make everything as light as a feather.

This relationship is not making me feel as if my wishes are satisfied anymore, so stuff it & my children’s needs.

Fix the sick way we handle a parents duty to their children not make it worse.

MarkS says:

11:50am | 28/02/12

@Hanzel
Hear Hear
Duty is a heavy as a mountain. There is something sick in a society that tries to make everything as light as a feather.

This relationship is not making me feel as if my wishes are satisfied anymore, so stuff it & my children’s needs.

Fix the sick way we handle a parents duty to their children not make it worse.

Sarah says:

12:48pm | 29/02/12

Ah yes, because the Christian Right has never tried to talk over the top of anyone who disagrees. Poor meek conservatives - such a shame their little voices are never heard.
It’s particularly clever of the gay rights lobby to be so intimidating as to force the majority of people to support gay marriage when they are polled over the phone in the privacy of their own homes.
Maybe you, Josh, need to ‘accept’ that you are now in the minority - that it is not the intimidation tactics of the gay rights lobby that is silencing your potential allies, but that you simply don’t have as many allies as you used to.

Lauren says:

09:27am | 28/02/12

Yes, because only men can “stand up for the kids”.

Hanzel says:

10:07am | 28/02/12

A couple of nice ladies aren’t gonna intimidate Bazza “the pit bull” Jones, for example. Of course the authorities will offer protection but then we need to start talking about a police state, which is far from ideal.
The way of the world, Loz, my friend

kate says:

10:19am | 28/02/12

And what children with red hair were more likely to be bullied - would people with red-headed genes be criticised for having children?

What if “wogs” were more likely to be bullied - would people of Mediterranean heritage be told not to have children?

What if kids with glasses were more likely to be bullied - would prospective parents be required to have eyesight tests before giving birth?

The best response to bullying is to address the bullying problem, not blame the victims or their parents.

Jim says:

09:11am | 28/02/12

Chris

EVERY Christian is prepared to disregard some bibilcal principles in the face of other ideals. Leviticus, the old testament book that is so often quoted by Christians as God’s apparent word against homosexuals, contains a great list of things that people shouldn’t do on punishment of death.

Leviticus 20:9 “For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him”

Have your children ever cursed you Chris? If so then I hope you killed them because that’s what the word of God says you should do.

Evidently you feel that homosexuality is unnatural and you are well within your rights to feel this way. But whatever you think your God says is the right thing to do actually has nothing to do with it; especially when it is so easy for a reasonable person to point out the flaws in the argument.

Chris says:

10:43am | 28/02/12

Hi Jim,

Thanks for your reply.  Firstly - no I don’t recall my kids ever cursing me.

Second, and more importantly, the interaction between the Old Testament laws given to the Jewish people and the New Testament principles is more complex than a site like this allows us to discuss (it’s also likely to take us waaaaay off topic). 

Interpreting Old Testament scripture needs to be approached with a degree of caution both in terms of the purpose and the context of the scripture.  There are both practical and theological basis for Old Testament law which arguably do not apply now.  Also the simplistic quotation of old testament scripture outside the impact that Jesus had on those laws is also questionable.  My point is - it’s a more complicated issue than quoting apparent OT rules which require me to kill people.

In terms of whether God has anything to do with it - of course God does and I’m not sure where you’re headed there.  If a person’s views are formed on the founding of religious belief (whatever belief and view we might be talking about) then God has a lot to do with it.  Similarly the rationality of the pilgrimage to Mecca could be called into doubt - but for a Muslim it is an important tenant of their religion.

Decisions about what we think is right or not are based on our personal belief systems.  That’s where God (or un-God, or no-God) comes into it.

Cheerio,
C

St. Michael says:

11:15am | 28/02/12

Chris, I think there’s a smell of hay in that argument since your premise more or less relies on the idea that the Bible’s to be taken literally.  Most thinking Christians don’t regard that as so.  That is part of the reason blasphemy is no longer a capital crime or even an offence: because thinking Christianity takes the view it’s actually impossible to meaningfully blaspheme against the vast sweep of inspiration that constitutes the Bible.

As an aside, on this topic I’ve been reading The Quest for the Grail, a book by Timothy Rohr, a Franciscan Catholic who’s been around since the seventies and has managed to avoid the Inquisition, er, the Committee for the Doctrine of the Preservation of the Faith.

Some of his observations are the sort of thing that could make one become a Catholic again.  His pertinent suggestions from the book in this area come down to—

(a) homosexuality is from God, in that it’s something to remind humanity that it doesn’t have all the answers.  Reality itself includes both order (that is, how we expect things to be) and disorder (where things do not conform to our expectations.  Rohr is at some pains to point out that when he refers to disorder in this context, he’s not referring to the Catholic dogma term of “disordered”) and if God exists, he is God of all of it, therefore homosexuality, too, is expected and included.

(b) when dealing with the Bible and in particular the Old Testament—if not the entirety of religion, Christian or otherwise—you are dealing largely in metaphor and in virtually all cases speaking to very deep psychological and mythical roots.  The main problem is that modern orthodoxy sees the metaphor as the literal truth, quite literally focusing on the finger pointing at the moon and missing all the heavenly glory that lies in the direction the finger points.

That sort of insight makes Biblical literalism superficial at best and blind at worst.  Joseph Campbell, author of “The Hero With a Thousand Faces” practically spells out that humanity has common myths, common hero, God, and Messiah stories across its cultures; Rohr suggests the reason why these stories are common and why myths keep rolling down the centuries is because they’re rooted to primal issues in our psyche—the issue of genders, the issue of peak experiences, the issue of human development across the lifespan.

It’s a beautiful synthesis of psychology, male/female gender differences, and acknowledgment and harnessing of Catholicism’s pagan roots to modern thought.  Even the Grail Quest itself falls within this mode of thought, and how Rohr analyses it is thought-provoking.

It’s a big subject to dive into right now, but Rohr’s on my “recommend” list if anyone wants a sign that reassessment of religion and thinking is not completely dead in the Catholic Church.

Chris says:

11:39am | 28/02/12

Hi Michael,

Long time no see

I won’t comment on Rohr much since I haven’t read the book so it wouldn’t be appropriate, but my gut reaction is that he probably faced some opposition if your summary is accurate - that said the book seems to be from 1994 (quick google search) so maybe discussion about it has died down now.

re: the Bible.  As you say this is a bigger topic and isn’t even close to what we’re talking about here.  But a few comments:
1) The bible isn’t a book - as I’m sure you know - it is a collection of works and the process of its production was extremely complicated and long-winded.  You might read “How we Got the Bible” by Neil Lightfoot if you are interested in the topic. 
2) Ignoring for a moment the “fantastical” side of the books of the Bible, they have been demonstrated time and again by historians to be accurate both in reference to acknolwedged historical events and their timing.  Dismissing the entire bible as a work of fiction is to ignore the work of thousands of historians who have studied the topics.  I accept that people will disregard some of the bible as not literal (the book of Genesis being an obvious example) but turfing all of it is foolish.  Even references to Jesus Christ and his various exploits have been examined by reference to third party writers at the time (Josephus, for example, who was certainly not a Christian but referred to miracles performed as “baffling”).
3) The argument that homosexuality is from God because God created everything and is in everything is odd, because it can be applied to everything despite any contradiction in the bible - murder, stealing, rape, assault and so on.  By the argument God is in people who do those things too, therefore it’s fine.  Maybe I’ve misunderstood the argument (and as you say it’s too big to go into here) but it seems weak.

Always fun,
Chris

St. Michael says:

12:26pm | 28/02/12

“The argument that homosexuality is from God because God created everything and is in everything is odd, because it can be applied to everything despite any contradiction in the bible - murder, stealing, rape, assault and so on.  By the argument God is in people who do those things too, therefore it’s fine.  Maybe I’ve misunderstood the argument (and as you say it’s too big to go into here) but it seems weak.”

May as well go into it, since we obviously have nothing better to do.

Quick biographical note: Rohr didn’t write the one book, he’s been continuously writing on these subjects for a good 30-odd years or so.  Like I said, Franciscan, and the Pope hasn’t ordered him to stop, so…

Anyway, to return to the part you quoted: Rohr doesn’t suggest that sinning is good, merely that one has to expect it as part of the human condition.  (In passing I think this is a decent way of addressing the God of the Gaps—i.e. that God is God of all of creation, not merely the parts which are not explained by scientific exploration.)

One interesting point he raises, which I’ve got to recheck Genesis on, is that on the literal Bible it’s not until the third day of creation—when the earth gets filled with creepy crawlies and televangelists. —that God begins to say “And God saw that it was good.”

Rohr makes the suggestion the reason God didn’t say separating the light from the dark, the heaven from the earth was good is a metaphorical omission: it isn’t good that they are separated.  As human beings we have both light and dark within ourselves.  We have to live with, tragically, both.  The best of saints (Augustine, for example) acknowledged the dark in themselves rather than hating it as such.

The part about not separating the heaven and the earth is because Rohr says that life on earth—as a metaphor, and perhaps psychologically—cannot be so separated: if you lose the supernatural—and in particular the numinous, the peak experience—from existence, life dies.  This is not an argument in favour of dogmatic “God is great and we are shit”.  Men are not predominantly evil—that’s as flawed an argument as suggesting they are all inherently saints.  They are both dark and light.

Separation itself is significant.  By definition, what is not separated cannot be united, since to unite with something means there is more than one piece to begin with.  Rohr’s proposition is that man is continually searching, on a deep psychological level, for a return to an encounter with God, an encounter he had at birth or before which was the expression of absolute love.  In legend this is called the Grail Quest.

The Old Testament and in particular the Book of Job have some support for this metaphor: the historical reading of the OT is that Satan is not portrayed as the dude with horns and cloven feet.  He was originally regarded as the “Accuser” of mankind—he represents the shadow in all of us, the shadow that says we are not worthy of God, the same shadow that Carl Jung identified nearly 1800 years later.

Out of time right now…

Chris says:

01:09pm | 28/02/12

Hi Michael,

Have you noticed how long winded we are?

Oh well.  Since Google is my friend I have now read widely from a variety of “authoratitive” sources (ie - the top hits from my random search) and it seems that Mr Rohr is regarded by many as…. well…. a lunatic.

As I’m not catholic, the ins and outs of catholic politics elude me.  But it seems he’s also been pretty widely condemned as a heretic by lots of people.

Nonetheless, based on what you’ve described, he seems more interested in philosophy than theology.  All for interesting writing (and no doubt reading) but not necessarily representative of an appropriate Christian view about the Bible or God (whose existence, like that of Satan, seems only to be parenthetical to his writing).

However - maybe we’ll leave our discussions about the meaning of life, existence of God and the veracity of the Bible to a time when the good people at The Punch decide to publish a topic on those, which will no doubt be a very interesting day. 

Best,
Chris

St. Michael says:

01:45pm | 28/02/12

I’d say “representative of an appropriate Christian view about the Bible or God” is another way of saying “orthodox”.  Take from that what you will.

One last note, agreeing we should wait for another thread.  You do recall the old Jack Lemmon film “Mass Appeal”, about an old Catholic priest and a young priest placed in a mentor/student relationship? (Zeljko Ivanek played the student.)  This quote has always stayed with me:

Ivanek: But why are you going to risk yourself for me?
Lemmon: Because you’re a lunatic! ... and the church needs lunatics.

OchreBunyip says:

10:26am | 28/02/12

I think it is telling that in cases of DV the Police look to blame any man present and remove him from the house, rather than removing the violent spouse - which is just as likely to be the woman. If they had a just policy, the Police would remove the violent offender, regardless of sex, and lesbian DV would be treated just the same as hetero DV.

John F says:

11:07am | 28/02/12

I know longer care about football, politic’s, world affairs, movies, or just about anything else in this world. All I care about is seeing my kids 2 of which I havnt been able to see in nearly 5 years. Every waking moment is spent thinking about them, all the things I have missed out on, the knowing that my oldest 2 hate me and that I have no way to “fix” the problem. There is all this attention applied to a very small percentage of the population (gays etc) yet what is going on in hetro relationships is generaly ignored. My children are out of my life because lieing works in the family courts and for obtaining AVO’s/DVO’s. My problem is the same as many many other men out there, we have been removed from our families with the full help and encouragment of the goverment and laws which are totally sexist. Considering the number of family breakdowns you would think that this is an extremley important issue, but it isnt. Many people cant understand why the male suicide rate is so much higher than female rates. I know why and many other men do too, I just hope I can hold out and stop the temptation from finally winning me over. Gay’s getting married and having kids, I just dont give a shit !

Richard M says:

10:20am | 28/02/12

The most sickening things about these reports are some of the comments approving of the lesbian parents’ actions in the first two cases.  Apparently, there is a number of people out there in society whose feminist misandry is so fanatical that they are prepared to condone what amounts to the most stomach-turning child abuse to advance their man-hatred.

Timinane says:

10:44am | 28/02/12

3 cherry pciked examples, 2 which could be completely harmless occurances whilst ignoring the countless children abused in heterosexual relationships.

RyaN says:

11:16am | 28/02/12

@Timinane: And you still failed to read the last line of my comment. What percentage of the entire population are gay?
What percentage of the gay population are interested in a long term relationship?
What percentage of those interested in a long term relationship are interested in having children?
What percentage of those have children?

Based on that very very tiny percentage, being able to find three examples in the last year of blatant child abuse is quite telling.

Timinane says:

02:57pm | 28/02/12

An estimated 10% of people are said to be gay so at last estimates that’s about 700 million in the wolrd or 2.2 million in Australia. 3 is statistically insignificant in that population I think. Being just under 0.000003% of the homosexual population in Australia and world wide that’s just under 0.000000009% of the homosexual population.

RyaN says:

03:39pm | 28/02/12

@Timinane: I am not sure where you get your statistics from but the last I checked it was between 5% and 10%. But lets take your best case scenario of 10% for arguments sake.
Of those 10%, how many are interested in a long term relationship and have children, 1% ?
So out of 22 000 three identified, high profile cases in one year (there are potentially many, many more that haven’t been covered) is statistically significant.

Timinane says:

05:27pm | 28/02/12

@RyaN
Using your numbers that’s still only 0.0001% of the population.
I don’t think that’s significant enough for your argument to make sense.

That’s about the incident rate of a disability I have called Haemophilia.

I should leave small minded fools like yourself alone, I read books written for girls when I was younger and I turned out to be a better more accepting human being than you.

RyaN says:

10:54am | 29/02/12

@Timinane: So having concern for children and being subject to deviancy and a shot at a normal life makes me a bad person now does it?

If caring for the welfare of children makes me a worse person than you Timinane then I’ll wear that badge with honour thanks.

JD says:

11:25am | 29/02/12

Ignoring for a moment the various percentages being thrown around, I think that you should be very careful about what you are calling ‘blatant child abuse’.
In the third article “is suspected of sexually abusing (the child). They are also suspected of exploiting (the child) through child pornography and obtaining (the child) for the sole purpose of exploitation”. This means that nothing has been proven and they may indeed be completely innocent.
The first article may be completely innocent. I can tell you now that there are various photos around of my brother and I playing dress ups in opposite gender roles as children with which neither of us have or ever had an issue.
The second article is a little more complicated. I have experience with trans people and I have seen cases where forcing a teenager to go through adolescence, when they are identifying as the opposite gender and are not mentally prepared, can not only be damaging but in many cases lethal. It should also be noted that allowing the child to postpone puberty to be able to eventually give informed consent is legal and is being supported by various medical professionals. An argument could be made that not allowing their child to use hormone blockers is in itself a form of child abuse.
If you are interested in the medical guidelines around transgender children and teenagers you should consider reading WPATH’s Standards of care: http://www.wpath.org/documents/Standards of Care V7 - 2011 WPATH.pdf

RyaN says:

01:01pm | 29/02/12

@JD: Justify away like two lesbians encouraging their confused little boy to become a little girl is somehow “normal”.

JD says:

10:42am | 01/03/12

Nowhere in the article does it state (excepting the sensationalist title) that the parents are supporting a transition, what it does say is that “..they support their child and feel this is the best way for him to find an answer to a question he has been asking all his life.” I take this to mean that they support the adolescent in finding out if transitioning from male to female is something the adolescent needs to do. Please share your own interpretation if you feel this may be wrong.
A part of the parents support is allowing the adolescent to use hormone blockers so that in the future an informed choice can be made. These drugs are not a one way ticket to hormone transition.
To be very clear I am NOT justifying this particular case, as I do not know all the facts. What I am saying that there are times when hormone blockers have been used, it has been successful and the adolescents have grown into happy, well rounded adults whether or not they have decided to transition. Any adolescent who does use hormone blockers meet with multiple health care professionals, who specialise in the field of Gender Dysphoria and follow health care guidelines, before they are allowed to do so to ensure that the treatment is appropriate for the patient.
There are many health care professionals that not only support, but recommend the use of hormone blockers in adolescents in order to treat Gender Dysphoria and reduce the chances of mental illness or suicide that may arise as a result of going through puberty.
Gender Dysphoria is a medical condition and it should be treated as one irregardless of the age of the patient. A adolescent presenting with Diabetes Mellitus would not be denied the appropriate treatment for fear of long term side effects or their young age because in the short time it would result in death. Similarly, an adolescent presenting with gender dysphoria should not be denied an age appropriate treatment because this to can result in death.
This adolescent may not choose to medically transition, but for us to accuse the parents and medical system of child abuse and deny this adolescent treatment could potentially result in death. I would prefer a rise in the number of adults with diverse upbringings than a rise in the rates of teen suicide.

Kassandra says:

03:24pm | 01/03/12

It is extremely difficult to get accurate figures on the proportion of the population who are homosexual. The commonly quoted figure of 10% is based on inaccurate methods and is almost certainly a gross overestimate. In the research literature on epidemiology around 2% seems to be the most reliable estimate. For example http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12594197#

Jacqui Tomlins says:

10:21am | 29/02/12

Thanks. I’m trying not to read them! Nice to stumble over yours in my quick flick through.

kate says:

10:32am | 28/02/12

“I wonder if children of same-sex parents ever desire to know who their missing father or mother is - who they resemble in appearance and character, and who’s genes they possess?”

Gosh, thanks for that Donald.  If only we’d thought of that, we would never have had children.  Because of course all lesbians and their children live in hermetically sealed bubbles with no interaction with the outside world, their children are deprived of any information about, or relationship with, their donor, they are never curious about the facts of life, they never ask ‘where do I come from’, and if they do their mothers never provide any answers, because they are SELFISH EVIL MANHATING FEMINISTS WHO ONLY HAD CHILDREN TO PROVE SOME SICK POINT.

/sarcasm.

Ask my daughter.  She knows where she comes from.  She knows who her donor is - he’s a delightful man who is interested in her life, visits often, and they have researched his family tree together.  He’s not her father, he’s her donor, and she and he are perfectly cool with that.  The fact that it’s not something you’re familiar with doesn’t automactically make it bad. 

” In short, are we harmfully denying children a part of their identity by raising them in a same-sex relationship? “

No.

MarkS says:

10:58am | 28/02/12

@Kate
It is without any doubt important to you that you believe what you say. Does not make it true.

Lauren says:

12:46pm | 28/02/12

Mark S - then the same can be said about every comment on here.

The difference here is that while majority of people offering their opinions most likely have no direct knowledge of this issue,  Kate does.

MarkS says:

02:29pm | 28/02/12

@Lauren
“then the same can be said about every comment on here.”

Not so, Kates statement

“If only we’d thought of that, we would never have had children”

It is not important to me that I be correct. Should I be proven proven to be incorrect I would not loath myself. I have no skin in this game. The same cannot be said in relation to Kate. What you call knowledge I call bias.

Sarah says:

01:03pm | 29/02/12

@MarkS - no, you will probably never ‘loath’ yourself for your opinion, because you will go through your life completely convinced that you are right, and know the ‘truth’. Gay people have no right to comment because they have a vested interest, apparently, whereas purporting to understand something you have no first-hand knowledge of is the ‘neutral’ and ‘unbiased’ position . Perhaps the children of gay parents are most likely to suffer because of the continued perpetuation of uninformed and hurtful claims about their families. Perhaps it is people like you and Donald, rather than Kate (and Jacqui) who are actually causing harm to children.

Another Chris says:

11:06am | 28/02/12

Exactly, Nature Boy. The title of the article indicates a compromise for the get go. It’s almost like an indirect acknowledgement of a sub-optimal environment. Why are we encouraging such things as a society in the name of tolerance and homosexual parental validation?

Another Chris says:

11:06am | 28/02/12

Exactly, Nature Boy. The title of the article indicates a compromise for the get go. It’s almost like an indirect acknowledgement of a sub-optimal environment. Why are we encouraging such things as a society in the name of tolerance and homosexual parental validation?

Thinkingisfun says:

02:20pm | 28/02/12

@ AnotherChis
Can you please stop saying sub-optimal. You are getting irritating. Not just because of your bigoted views in which you state that your opinion alone matters and anyone else who differs in just plain old wrong, depsite the fact you have sub-optimal knowledge or experience in the matters at hand. But because you keep repeating yourself. even down to your limited vocabulary.

Your opinion, dear sir, is not fact.

I know a lot of lesbian and gay couples. A lot with children. Some conceived through previous hetero-relationships and some through the same-sex relationships. And the thing that stands out more than anything is how wanted those children are. They are not accidental or unplanned. They are celebrated and loved.

More thought and effort goes into educating and raising and loving and spending time with a child yearned for than most of those conceived through the “optimal” way. This is for any couple who desire a child and need assistance, not just same-sex. However it does, most certainly, apply.

Generally the children are more compassionate, more willing to contribute to society, well-read and well-rounded. They are healthier, team players and more confident. Despite inner-city cafes or suburban malls. (There are more gays around you than you realise.)

What do you say about a woman who has a child because she was raped? Should THAT child have access to their biological parent? Is it more or less distressing for the child to not see the “father”? What if the man WANTS to see that child?

How about you take a breathe, take a step back and take your blinkers off. Following your line of thinking thus far, of cause and effect of parent on child, your children must be arrogant, narrow-minded, bigoted, bogans who are jealous of anyone who has the ability to provide “inner city cafe” lifestyles for their kids.And not very well educated.

That is the most suboptimal thing i have ever heard.

And here… you might find this useful for your response.

http://thesaurus.com/

Another Chris says:

03:51pm | 28/02/12

Wow, thinkingisfun….what a reply. My apologies for insulting your intelligence with the use of the word sub… I won’t say it.. Don’t want to upset you.  For your information, I’m not bigoted. Now there’s a word that’s been thrown around like it’s the new black! It’s the catch cry of Getup and the like. I just happen to disagree with society playing God, deciding where/when Children are born and abusing our reproductive ability to satisfy the wants of Homosexual couples who are by default denying a Child the two Sexes ergo parents it takes to make them. I’m sure they love them, I’m sure they care for them and I’m sure they’re good kids but fact is fact. They can’t have children and there is no way they ever can without intervention and it’s not our place to decide.

Then you turn around and say that most kids conceived the “optimal” way aren’t going to perform as well as those from Homosexual relationships…and you tell me to take my blinkers off. 

If your seriously going to use a rape victim as your example, your counter argument is flawed from the beginning given a crime was perpetrated to create that child. Biological reproduction is not my opinion, it’s fact and it’s the foundation of society. My opinion centres around that fact yet we as a society have the audacity to think it’s ok to redefine that to satisfy a minority. How about you get a bit more creative with your arrogant (there’s some irony for ya) bigoted (wow, you used it twice!), Bogan (I’ll just laugh) response?

RyaN says:

01:20pm | 29/02/12

@Thinkingisfun: I think it is quite offensive to equate children born into same sex households to children born to raped mothers.

MarkS says:

10:55am | 28/02/12

The sperm donor.

Maleck says:

10:58am | 28/02/12

Well said, pity everyone just ignores it because it interferes with their differing views.

I for one grew up in a single parent family, my brother and I have different fathers who both abandoned my mother while she was pregnant. I grew up fatherless, with a single mother on the pension in a bad part of town. And you know what, I turned out great. University degree, good job and a loving partner. For the most part I am happy, intelligent and successful. My Brother did not do so well, and is constantly in trouble with money and drugs.

It just goes to show that parental situation is not the be all and end all of a child’s development, the kids have their own personalities as well and the ability to make their own choices. I truly believe that having a loving family is more important than gender.

Chris says:

11:08am | 28/02/12

In one sense I think you’re right.  The way children end up is adults is not always indicative of their upbringing.  Likewise there is no “perfect” family and everyone has their idiosynchrases.  People from “ideal” families can be mentally stuffed and people from “stuffed” families can be gems.

BUT - I don’t think you can eliminate upbringing from the equation.  Yes everyone will be an individual, but that doesn’t mean the way you are raised has no impact upon that result.  It might just mean that the impact is unpredictable (otherwise siblings would always be the same arising from the same parenting style, which is clearly not the case).

It’s a pretty ancient question - nature vs nurture.  And I’m not sure anyone’s come up with a comprehensive answer yet except that “it’s complicated”.

Cheerio,
C

MarkS says:

10:43am | 28/02/12

@Ness
“Plenty of kids raised in single parent households turn out exactly the same as any well adjusted kid from a stable two parent family”

And plenty do not as well, it is a matter of increased risk of a bad outcome.

Donald says:

11:32am | 28/02/12

@Ness
A child does have something of the father/mother - genes, character, appearance, traits and other physical attributes.  It is part of what makes who you are from birth.  You may not be born with Weetbix, but you are born with something linked to your mother/father.

S says:

10:27am | 28/02/12

Lauren,

The majority of people disagree with you. The status quo is against you. We do not need evidence to back up our opinions. You need to provide evidence to convince us to change our minds. Saying that you aren’t convinced by our argument is irrelevant; because a majority doesn’t need to convince a minority to change their mind.

Lauren says:

10:47am | 28/02/12

I..honestly don’t even know how to respond to that.

Your argument against homosexuals raising children is simply ‘I don’t agree with it’? No particular reasons? Just…you don’t like it? And because “the majority” of people agree with you, that’s all the reasoning you need?

Another Chris says:

11:21am | 28/02/12

S Makes a Valid point Lauren,

We have billions of families as evidence it works. Billions of well adjusted happy kids from heterosexual families. Sure there are Millions our there that have had a less than ideal upbringing in such an environment but that comes down to the individuals mind, not the heterosexual combination itself. If it’s biologically wrong, you’re on the back foot already. Please don’t use references to the animal kingdom. They’re cut from different cloth.

James says:

12:21pm | 28/02/12

Actually, you do need evidence, S.

Becuase your “popular” opinion is basing their argument on facts. You are claiming that homosexual couples having children puts the child at risk. I don’t see anywhere that Lauren has stated facts as part of her argument. In fact, she is simply questioning the reasons behind people believing particular views. She doesn’t need to provide evidence for inquiring about the reasons behind viewpoints.

YOU, on the other hand, (and by you I mean everyone who is against this issue), are the ones bringing up ‘evidence’ and ‘facts’ to prove your points…however I can’t see any actual studies that back up your claims. No one has provided any links to studies or statistics (that are relevant or reputable) yet.

By all means, if you don’t want to provide evidence you’re more than welcome to downgrade your argument to ‘There isn’t any evidence supporting this, but I believe that kids in same sex households are worse off than kids in heterosexual households’. Don’t expect people with half a brain to be swayed by this though.

Lauren says:

01:05pm | 28/02/12

“Millions our there that have had a less than ideal upbringing in such an environment but that comes down to the individuals mind, not the heterosexual combination itself.”

So you agree that it isn’t so much the gender of the parents, but the ‘individuals mind’ when it comes to kids having a shitty upbringing? Finally, some common ground we agree on!

Another Chris says:

01:51pm | 28/02/12

@Lauren, then I go on to say (the issue is not) “not the heterosexual combination itself”.
I think we have defined environment differently. Private or Public schooling is not a massive influence other factors do of course influence the child but not at the same level as parenting in my opinion.
I’ve seen kids come out feral as a result of shitty upbringing. Of course this is a factor but it’s primarily parental & social influences (friends) from my observations.
I am still saying Homosexual parenting is less than ideal. Why would we forcibly put a child in that environment? I understand there are exceptions where parents split, change sexual orientation but why would we go on to create those conditions to satisfy someones desire to have a child?

Movin On says:

03:29pm | 28/02/12

@ Lauren - well said.
@ Another Chris - “Why would we forcibly put a child in that environment?” - I often ask myself that question…..
Why would we put aboriginal children in a group home when they have perfectly capable and loving extended families at home - I’m sure the stolen generation are asking that question each and everyday.
And why would you send your child to “Boarding school” where they are removed from their hetero parents to be brought up by a group home?
And why would we send a child back to an obviously unsafe environment - to hetero parents that have a history of abuse?
And why would you send a child to child care then school, then after school care - taking them away from their hetero parents to be brought up in a group home?
Why would you wrench a new born from their mothers’ arms to be adopted simply because she is unwed?
The Million Dollar Question? “Why would we forcibly put a child in that environment?” I can think of hundreds of environments that children should never have to be put in. A loving family environment with people that care and nurture the child - how horrendous!

Lauren says:

03:31pm | 28/02/12

Chris - when you say “Why would we forcibly put a child in that environment?” what exactly do you mean?

Do you actually have evidence that kids in same sex couple households are worse off than kids in heterosexual couple households? Because so far all you are saying is what *you* believe to be the case. Which is fine, except you are basically claiming your opinion as fact, which unless you have the evidence to back it up, is wrong.

I’ll be happy to continue this debate when you put forward a statement that isn’t based on your opinion on what you THINK is happening in same sex couple households. Just because you believe something to be true doesn’t make it so, regardless if you think it’s “the norm” or not.

S says:

03:51pm | 28/02/12

James, Lauren,

I have no idea whether homosexual parents are better, worse, or as good as heterosexual parents. I am sitting here waiting to be convinced by you that I should subscribe to your cause. I accept that people in this thread are trying to argue that homosexuals make worse parents, but I don’t think that is an accurate cross section of the ‘opposition’ on this issue.

I think you will find that “popular” opinion isn’t based on any argument. It’s based on the fact that it has always been one way and now people are asking for change. That opinion is not bigotted, or homophobic, because it applies to much more than just this issue. It is a conservative opinion, and it is not evil.

My current position is that the family has alway been traditionally governed by a heterosexual couple. I am happy to be convinced otherwise, but your convincing seems to be to ask me to justify my position. I am simply countering that I don’t need to justify anything, because I’m not the one asking for things to change.

This is the way democracy works. The only way a minority issue like this gets accepted is by the minority providing a rational argument as to why the majority should support their interests.

Another Chris says:

04:14pm | 28/02/12

@Lauren- what exactly do I mean? Exactly what I said: We implant a child into a couple that by default cannot ever conceive.

Proof:  The fact that Nature didn’t make us asexual. If we were meant to have same sex parents, this would be the case. I don’t think Homosexuals wouldn’t make good parents, I think they would love their Children unconditionally too. Fact remains, that child is denied a Father OR Mother as a result (Femininity/Masculinity). If you choose not to debate further, fine. You can’t argue with nature though.

@Moving on: I’m sure the stolen generation are asking those questions, we as a society acknowledge it was wrong. Why are we doing it again then in a far more surgical way? You talk like of those kids ended up in abusive homes. Im sure some of them ended up in loving families. It doesn’t make it right in any case. 
So are you saying it’s OK to deny a child the a Father and Mother because we decide? That’s basically what I’m reading, sorry to paraphrase id thats the case..
PS.  A number of the situations your gave as examples don’t happen to the majority Kids (and without the knowledge of the welfare authorities) therefore aren’t good examples.

Movin On says:

08:53am | 29/02/12

@Another Chris - You totally ignored my premise that a loving stable family is a much better place for any child than anywhere else. And, you’d better be careful about that “Mother and Father ” stuff - I mean what about Jesus? He had no biological father, yet had two fathers, now, how does that fit in with your “idealogical” view?

Another Chris says:

10:54am | 29/02/12

@Moving On: Are you making the assumption that I’m a Christian? Interesting . Jesus only had one earthly Father from My understanding.  In Christianity, all Christians are Children of God. So technically, they all have a second dad, following that logic.
I agree that a loving stable family is the best place for a child. I don’t think I ever said otherwise. In addition to that, I believe that where possible, the child should be with it’s biological parents where possible so long as the first condition is met. But who are we to judge that? Are you assuming that Hetero Couples are less loving than Homosexual couples? In frankness, I believe part of that “love” is allowing that child to have a mother and father, denying that is selfish. Gay/Lesbian parenting is essentially a declaration (whether intended or not) that one of the two it takes to make a child is redundant and irrelevant. I disagree with that. Especially in the area of IVF (which does have it’s place)  where we’ve turned reproduction into a production line factory.

Johnny Bartholomew says:

11:32am | 28/02/12

Well I am Gay, and I grew up in a heterosexual environment [as we all do], and it is constantly promoting its agenda to me. I resent that, and I still do.

Dan Webster says:

12:01pm | 28/02/12

@ Johnny,
Gay people resent lots of stuff. That’s why they become activists in the first place. The world owes them….....

(Let’s get those nasty heterosexuals for making our lives crap!)

PS - It’s the heteros who keep this wonderful human species alive Johnny. Thank us one day.

kate says:

12:55pm | 28/02/12

“It’s the heteros who keep this wonderful human species alive Johnny. Thank us one day. “

Which is it Dan?  Is your problem that we’re NOT having kids and dooming the species to extinction, or is your problem that we ARE having kids and ruining their lives.  Do you want us to have kids or don’t you?

David says:

01:53pm | 28/02/12

Actually Dan, there are some very nasty heterosexuals that capitalise on making gay peoples’ lives crap. Invariably they are evangelists - the likes of Pat Robertson, the late Jerry Falwell, Fred Phelps etc.

Dan Webster says:

01:54pm | 28/02/12

@ Kate - hhhmmmm…Yes I contradicted myself there.

I don’t really want you to have kids but I can’t then gloat that the hetero’s are doing all the work (especially if the gays are willing to contribute.)

Dan 0 / Kate 1

“It’s the heteros who keep this wonderful human species alive Johnny. Thank us one day. “ <  I formally retract that line from my arguement.

Dan Webster says:

03:30pm | 28/02/12

@ David - That’s true, fair point.

They also make non-gays lives miserable as well.

iansand says:

11:00am | 28/02/12

A bit left field for Erick, but I’m sure he will have something to contribute.

Evie says:

11:04am | 28/02/12

While I agree that there should be an inclusion of male gay couples mentioned, I have to disagree with your last comment. My younger brother grew up with 2 older sisters & my mother (my dad died when I was 3) and he is in no way a ‘fucked adult’.

St. Michael says:

11:18am | 28/02/12

@ Evie: and I presume he was lucky enough to have other male role models in his life who filled the breach?

Richard says:

03:36pm | 28/02/12

All I’m saying is, where are the avalanche of articles on the punch written by gay men saying “my kids have two dads and they’re just fine thank you”.

I mean, how many of you out there really think that for kids, having a mother is an optional extra, not necessary, neither here nor there, etc.

Because the principle is the same. I would really like to read an article by a gay man with a male partner about why kids don’t need mums, but as yet I’ve never seen one, although I’ve seen an avalanche of articles by lesbians about why kids don’t need dads.

Well… what’s the diff?

Dan Webster says:

11:50am | 28/02/12

Hi Ness,

“which isn’t as easy for lesbians as it is for straight women to go out and get pregnant, “

Nature says it is impossible for a women to impregnate another women….....just saying.

Lesbians are happy to DENY the childs right to their father.
Homosexuals are happy to DENY the childs right to their mother.
Gay people do not make balanced parents in the life of a child.

“people should be busy with raising their own children as opposed to telling others who they think are allowed to raise kids. “

Yet Gay parents get a free ticket to rabbit on about the virtues of Gay parenting…........get real Nessy !

St. Michael says:

11:17am | 28/02/12

In logical debate, there are only two intellectually honest debating tactics: debate the facts or debate the logic.  If, as you seem to suggest, you’d debate without resort to either, you are being intellectually dishonest.

mr g says:

11:45am | 28/02/12

And I’m sick of this drawn out, unimportant, issue taking up time and space when really, no-one gives a toss. Do you on one side really care about the fate of children? All children? Or just the ones suitable to promote your adopted point of view?
I could take you to the streets of Africa where millions, (yes, millions!), of dying children would love to have one parent, of either sex, let alone two of the same sex.
The guys/girls on the other side have an opportunity, (if they are fair dinkum about child-first not self-first), to do great good. Adopt. And adopt. And adopt again.
Sadly, in both camps it’s not about the children.
As long as no-one brings harm to me and mine, or to society in general, I don’t care who sleeps with whom. Or who raises children, and who doesn’t. As long as least harm comes to the child.
Apropos of nothing really, but I must ask. Am I to assume by the author’s text that the photo above is a photo of “the wife” in this arrangement? She appears to be trying to appear masculine, or maybe I’m just not understanding the whole ‘drift’ of the term ‘same-sex’. Probably right.

Stockinbingal roo says:

11:48am | 28/02/12

Debating the logic would seem to be more intellectual. These threads appear to use a intellectually dishonest tactic of skewing the debate towards the character of the opponent and not using the facts or logic.

Thinkingisfun says:

02:27pm | 28/02/12

@ mr g

if gay people were allowed to adopt in this country, a lot of them would. Recently the laws were changed to allow fostering of children by same-sex couples. And it has created wonderful homes of loving family’s for children who would have otherwise been without.

Its not the people lacking in desire…its the government saying no where it shouldnt

Lauren says:

01:09pm | 28/02/12

Read similar stories about kids who want the same thing, who came from households with a mother & a father.

So no, it’s doubtful that it did.

David says:

03:09pm | 28/02/12

Its called Gender Identity Disorder and the role of environmental factors in its causation has not been clinically established. In fact there is evidence to suggest that physical differences play a role that develop during the development of the foetus. The vast majority of people who suffer this disorder and seek sex reassignment surgery are from normal stable heterosexual families.

Lauren says:

01:17pm | 28/02/12

A+ comment.

I enjoy that most of the people here who use the “you need a male & female figure combined to grow up normal” seem to lack the ability to realise that it is highly possible that these kids DO have both genders as role models. Just because you don’t call someone “mum” or “dad” doesn’t mean they can’t positively influence your life. I had plenty of people I looked up to as a child that weren’t my mother or father. Aunts, Uncles, cousins, teachers, sport coaches…..it’s almost like they think all the gay couples are keeping their kids locked up with no contact with the outside world.

Xar says:

01:37pm | 28/02/12

Lauren - I know! The mind boggles! I also wonder if they think about families where one parent is away for months to years at a time? Do they think no armymilitary family is capable of raising kids because mummy or daddy spends months or years overseas, often at great risk of death? Of course not, because it isn’t actually about “the ideal” of mum+dad+kids at all, it is about homophobia.

AdamC says:

01:37pm | 28/02/12

Xar, I think you need to work a little on your delivery. I agree with your argument almost word-for-word, but the tone you adopted in this comment made me wish I didn’t!

Xar says:

02:19pm | 28/02/12

what tone was that AdamC? (remembering of course that how an individual interprets the written word can be wildly off the tone with which it was written by the author) If you got bemused appeal to logic with just a dash of irate (because surely it warrants that much at least?) you are on the money, but I’m not interested in changing it.

James1 says:

03:42pm | 28/02/12

I agree with Adam.  Add to the “touch of irate” and healthy dose of aggression, and that is how I read the tone.

Great points though.  Well said.

xar says:

10:22pm | 28/02/12

really? How interesting, i am frightfully curious as to how it might be read where I to actually channel a healthy dose of aggression into a post! - ah well, such is the joy of written communication.

steve says:

01:22pm | 28/02/12

mother & a father or a male & a female?

because they aren’t necessarily the same thing.

“not to mention he has almost no concept of what it is to be a man and can’t relate to them.”

what, did he not interact with people growing up?

xar says:

01:27pm | 28/02/12

and all the gay kids raised with such an aggressively pro-hetero upbringing that they commit suicide because they are gay and their parents hate them and try as they might they just can’t change their sexual orientation and can’t relate to heterosexual sexuality?

perplexed says:

03:51pm | 28/02/12

so, because you know ONE person raised by a same sex couple, you are going to generalise that ALL same sex couples should be banned from having children? Well if that’s the case I know of at least thousands of children from same sex households that are mistreated, abused, neglected, killed eve, so I say hetero couples should be banned from having children.

Peter says:

01:56pm | 28/02/12

Lol.  Sums it up, really.

Mariposa says:

10:49am | 12/03/12

Subotic: No-one forced you to have kids and follow the life-script, because you wanted to conform to society, you damn twit.  You could have been childfree. You just didn’t have the guts to take a different pathway. Boo-hoo, poor you, suck it up sunshine !

Thinkingisfun says:

02:34pm | 28/02/12

It would be worked out generally the same as in a defacto now (if not married) or a married couple (if laws change). If the two people were involved in the conception of the child and the raising of the child, then the same rights apply as parent v parent not mother v father.

Time spent with the child, relationship with the child comes into play. It didnt always, and usually the birth parent (in female same-sex situations) got the “better” deal. I know of situations where the birth mother spent hardly any time at home, the co-parent raised the child. They couple split up and the one closest conded to the child ended up having the child move to another state and she got no say.

The same pain exists. The same love exists.

perplexed says:

02:19pm | 28/02/12

oh if only child rearing was perfect, once again, the homophobia comes out.  You still don’t get it, there are families of all shapes and sizes, ones with a mum and dad, ones with a dad and no mum, ones with a mum and no dad, ones with no mum and a grandma, ones with no mum and no dad and a grandma, ones with no mum no dad no grandma, do you get my point? Do we over scrutinise and castigate and basically tar and feather all these different people that make all these variants of a family? NO WE DON’T but hey when it comes to same sex families well then! let’s just dress up our homophobia in the sheep’s clothing of “but what about the childrenz”!!......

Another Chris says:

11:53am | 29/02/12

@perplexed, makes it easier to degenerate Jacqui’s personal experience and opinion down to Homophobia. For crying out loud, disagreeing with Homosexual parenting does NOT = Homophobia!
In all the situations you present, there is a biological connection to the child’s family and we are talking about less than ideal situations correct? So are we in fact voluntarily putting a child in a less than perfect situation by advocating homosexual parenting? We are by default disconnecting that child from one side of it’s linage based on the thinking we know whats best for the child correct?

Two Mummies says:

02:52pm | 28/02/12

Can you tell me what it is, and please be specific, that a male parent models or does that is different to a female parent? What is the ‘maleness’ quality that you refer to and why must it come from someone living in the house?

The examples you give, are by your own admission, of families in crisis yet you seem to blame all the problems on the simple absence of a full-time male role model.

Most children do indeed learn from examples set at home by good and loving parents. Tell me what difference it makes if those role models are both female or both male? Mm=odelling good morals and attitudes and respect for others isn’t a gendered thing it is a human thing.

Lauren says:

02:54pm | 28/02/12

“but placing a child under the care of the state into a same sex couple would not be best for the child.”

“childrens rights must be protected and held in high importance.”

Two contridicting points here. Firstly you’re saying children are better off in the already overflowing (and often neglected) state care, than placed in a home where there is a same sex couples.

Then you say the childrens rights need to be protected and held in high importance.

So, you would rather keep the kids in the hands of the state, who do not have the money, resources or capacity to properly care for all of them, than place them into a (let’s assume) stable household…...for the only reason being that the parents happen to be of the same sex.

I see.

Richard says:

05:27pm | 28/02/12

@Two Mummies

Well, put it another way, is it ok for a little child, a little baby girl even, for argument’s sake to be deprived of a chance to bond with her mother in order that she may be raised by two gay male father parents?

In my opinion, the bond between mother and child is one of the strongest and most natural and desirable bonds that can exist in human relationships, do you not agree?

But you going to turn around and say “look, it doesn’t matter if the kid never gets to know its mother, form a bond with its mother, who cares? Its got two dads, that’s good enough, what’s the big deal?”

So are you willing to say that its ok for kids to be deprived of an intimate, day-in/day-out relationship with their own mother?  And if you’re not willing to say that, then why is the situation so different when it comes to depriving kids of an intimate familial relationship with their father?

David says:

03:37pm | 28/02/12

“Children of both sexes need parents of BOTH sexes as role models. Plain and simple. “

So everyone keeps asserting but to be honest nature is uncaring about ensuring that every child is given the just experience of growing up with their biological mother and father. Non traditional families can be formed for any number of reasons. Perhaps the mother or father is not committed to playing a role in the child’s life. Maybe one parent has died, or perhaps a gay or lesbian person was pressured by prevailing societal attitudes to attempt to maintain a heterosexual relationship and became a parent. (Such relationships are always doomed to fail). Regardless of whether we accept gay marriage or not these types of non traditional families will continue to be formed in our society and pretending that we can restrict or eliminate them is naive, and only serves to marginalise children and parents who are not in a traditional family. The evidence that suggests that the gender make up of a family has little impact on the psychological adjustment of the children is not some obscure article dug up from some corner of the web. It is a view that is held by just about every respected impartial psychological association in the developed world. We should not go round labelling a child’s family circumstances as appropriate and inappropriate, we should recognise and embrace the fact that a wide variety of family types will occur in society.

james says:

05:46pm | 29/02/12

The second thing. maybe if those animals can consent. seriously, Why are those things wrong?

Mark/fox says:

08:21pm | 29/02/12

So you think that cloning peple for spare parts is OK. I guess you are not one of those that think it is bad for wearing fur. Glad to see your comment. The challenge is now to see how sick our society can get. Next thing you know there will be a TV show on it.

A says:

12:21am | 29/02/12

I think one thing that is left out of this entire conversation that is almost purposely ignored is the natural right of the child to know their father as their father. I personally have no gripe against those who are in a homosexual relationship to adopt a child who has no parents or at least cannot find them, so long as they know.

That is possibly the only thing I have a problem with. I think it’s a basic human right to know who your biological parents are.

I haven’t been raised in a homosexual family, neither have many people, and certainly I cannot comment from personal experience. Neither am I an expert on this subject. It is obvious that each child is going to be different according to their genetics and environment they are brought up in. I do not think that every child will be concerned about knowing their father, but they at least have a right to know who they are.

Having said all that, contrary to how some have painted those who hold conservative Christian values, I will pray that you and your partner will have a healthy baby and that there will be no complications. It’s nice to hear someone who is in this situation completely analysing and assessing all the questions and coming up with answers and beliefs.

It’s nice to feel as if we can at least have a sensible and serious conversation about this. I don’t like gay ‘pride’ either, though that may be obvious. If homosexuals want to be treated ‘normally’ they need to start acting ‘normal’ ie. don’t hold mardi gras with men and women in extremely relieving clothes just because you are gay. The movement is only setting itself aside and alienating the rest of the community. How are we expected to treat homosexuals normally if you treat yourselves as special? (I’m not referring to you personally, this is just a personal gripe I have against it.)

JD says:

03:48pm | 05/03/12

Hi Renae, I noticed your comment just after mine was posted. Sounds like we’ve had similar experiences. I totally know what you mean about the stomach-clenching.
I find it mind-boggling the way the religious conservatives are ranting about what they choose to define as “natural”. Perhaps it is “natural” for many fathers (in both the biological and ecclesiastical senses) to be abusive? The outrageous hypocrisy of people associated with Christianity to try to preach to the public about this, given the institutionalized abuse of minors by Catholic priests, is just insane. (Not that women/mothers can’t be abusive as well, of course.) It is also obviously the case within many families, and the damage (as I’m sure you know) can be very difficult (and sometimes impossible) to fix.

Anyhow, I wish you the best, Renae.