Prev
Next

No law change should allow gay adoption in NSW

Greg Donnelly

by Greg Donnelly

14 Jul 05:50am

Must Reads

The Rinehart whine came straight from the heart - this is a caption

The Rinehart whine came straight from the heart

134

Julia Gillard is on the highway to the danger zone - this is a caption

Julia Gillard is on the highway to the danger zone

161

Friday dilemma: Should smacking be illegal? - this is a caption

Friday dilemma: Should smacking be illegal?

163

Filed under: Adoption, Children, Families, Gay Issues, Law

166 comments

For reasons beyond their control there are children, indeed babies, who find themselves in circumstances where the state is their legal guardian. It is not the choice of the child nor is it a new phenomenon. Seeing them as particularly vulnerable, societies have taken great care to look after such children, especially if they have neither a mother nor father.

Babies racing in the Ukraine. Pic: AFP

Without a biological mother or father or suitable family member or relative, the state has deemed it in the best interest of the child to be raised by a woman and a man, a mother and a father in a permanent relationship.

New South Wales has had responsible government since 1856 - over 150 years. Over that period, governments of all persuasions have acknowledged and supported the general proposition that a child’s best interest is served when that child is raised by a mother and a father. This has been seen, correctly in my view, as a valid principle that has guided our collective decision-making with respect to protecting the wellbeing of children. The principle is underpinned by that profound bond that exists between a child and a mother and a father; a bond that is intrinsically known and understood by all cultures, down the ages for as long as anybody can remember.

The situation where a child who does not have a biological mother or father or suitable family member or relative to raise them, and yet still expect to be raised by both a mother and a father, may disappear from the New South Wales statute book in the near future.

This outcome is the specific intention of the Private Member’s Bill being sponsored by the Member for Sydney, Clover Moore and is due to be debated when Parliament resumes after the winter recess.

Let’s be very clear, Clover Moore’s Adoption Amendment (Same Sex Couples) Bill 2010 covers the field with respect to adoption law in New South Wales. This is not just about women or men in a same-sex relationship who have a biological connection to a child, wanting the state to recognize their partner’s relationship with respect to the child. It goes to securing rights to adopt a child where there is no biological connection at all. It is about placing homosexual couples on an equal footing with heterosexual couples when being considered for what are referred to as “unknown” adoptions.

As a member of the Legislative Council’s Standing Committee on Law and Justice that examined the issue of same-sex adoption, I am familiar with the various arguments put forward to support the case for change. At the heart of the matter is a profoundly important question that needs to be clearly understood and then answered.

Is having both a mother and a father important for babies and children, or not? Some people, and I do not count myself as one of them, believe that society has progressed beyond the concepts of motherhood and fatherhood. For them, it is all a question of parenting; a matter of function over form.

I, and I believe many others in the community, do not accept the proposition that society has moved on to a model of parenting where gender is irrelevant. In fact a great deal of evidence presented to the Legislative Council’s inquiry on this very issue drew the opposite conclusion. Mothers matter. Fathers matter. They both matter.

There can be no doubt about how the complementary nature of both motherhood and fatherhood benefits the wellbeing of children. Indeed, up until recent time, and I literally mean the last few years, this perspective about parenting has been taken as a given. Society has accepted the proposition that it is good for a child to be raised by a mother and father in a permanent, preferably married relationship.

Another point worth noting is that there was very little evidence presented to the inquiry from children expressing their desire to be raised by two mothers or two fathers as opposed to a mother and a father. I don’t say this to be trite but rather to demonstrate the point that the overriding force behind this drive for change in the adoption laws is not children but same-sex couples.

If there are genuine questions of uncertainty with respect to rights and responsibilities between same-sex couples and children who are living with them, then there is an argument that these matters should be looked at and clarified. However, I do not believe that the appropriate way to proceed is to amend the Adoption Act 2000. If there are certain specific issues that need to be addressed involving same-sex couples and children living with them, let the specific issues be considered and dealt with on their merits. Amending the Adoption Act 2000 is not the only way to deal with such issues. Other legislative or regulatory mechanisms could be developed to address them.

It is also worth noting that the Clover Moore Bill is completely silent on the issue of exemption for faith-based adoption agencies from the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977. The Legislative Council inquiry considered this important issue in some detail and canvassed some specific recommendations. It is interesting to speculate why Clover Moore, who is thoroughly familiar with the inquiry’s report and recommendations, deliberately left the faith-based adoption agencies to hang out to dry.

Despite over 8,700 citizens of New South Wales petitioning the Parliament not to amend the adoption laws to provide for homosexual adoption, debate and determination of this matter will come up in a matter of weeks. Not because children want the law changed, but some adults want to create new rights for themselves. For those who believe that it is in a child’s best interest to be raised by both a mother and a father, now would be a good time to speak up and make your voices heard.

Greg Donnelly is Government Whip in the NSW Parliament

Don’t miss: Get The Punch in your inbox every day

Get The Punch on Facebook

Most commented

353Lay off the tatts and have a debate about the real issues
304Dog ownership laws a load of total bullpit
286Why do our universities teach shonky "magic"?
232I'm Labor, I'm pro-life and I'm no political hypocrite
226Is an act of crime ever too trivial for investigation?
225Home births are prone to many complications
213Blame no one – and everyone – for the Oz Day debacle
185A fair day's pay for a fair day's play

166 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Paul H says:

      07:19am | 14/07/10

      Clover Moore always seems to pop up whenever a loony idea gains momentum. Look at the debarcle of the cycle ways. What a winner that one is! How people keep voting for her is beyond belief! Now she wants to weigh in with same sex adoptions. This proposal is put forward by a bunch of selfish, narrow minded cretins, who don’t give a toss about what’s best for the child, they just want to be seen in the same light as a heterosexual family but without having undergone the pregnancy and birth. I have nothing against same sex relationships, whatever floats your boat but with heterosexual couples crying out to have a child by adoption or spending thousands on the IVF programme, why should we even discuss the matter of same sex couples being able to adopt?

      Reply

    • AliceC says:

      11:46am | 14/07/10

      Because they are human too. They did not choose to be gay, they are. And being gay does not stop someone’s wish to have a child. What about all those young mothers who have kids for the welfare benefits, are they putting the needs of the child first? I think not.

      ‘they just want to be seen in the same light as a heterosexual family but without having undergone the pregnancy and birth’.

      So heterosexual couples who cannot concieve nautrally or with the help of IVF, should also be banned from adopting, according to your logic?

    • Zeta says:

      02:34pm | 14/07/10

      Being gay might not stop someone wishing they have a child, in the same way being poor does not stop me from wishing I owned a wheat silo full of Cool Ranch Doritos.

      But it does kind of stop you from having a child of your own. Unless that kid in grade 3 was right and you can get pregnant from holding hands.

    • Muttley says:

      02:49pm | 14/07/10

      Paul H, Spot on. Lets have this discussion when we have children who cannot find homes because there arent enough people to adopt. Zeta, brilliantly worded response.

    • Robert Smissen Rural SA says:

      07:43pm | 14/07/10

      Paul H,  glad to meet someone as open minded as you ( NOTE the SARCASM ) Children aren’t born with a prejudice inbuilt, that is taught by people like you. Whilst being hetrosexual, some of my friends are not, I’d certainly sooner see them raising a child than some of the narrow minded bigots in this thread.

    • Pete says:

      09:12am | 15/07/10

      “selfish, narrow minded cretins”
      Is this the cretin calling the kettle black?  What dark place did you crawl out from ? 
      Gay couples have every right to parent a child whether it be through child birth or adoption. What makes you think that they are second class citizens?  I know of a child that was born into a same sex family and I stand in awe of that couple and how they raise their daughter.  They meet her every physical and emotional need. She is probably the most well adjusted child i know.  She is loved every second of the day she is always put first in any priority and wants for nothing. And you sit there and say because there may not be what you call the “norm” in the house that she will be at a disadvantage.

      I only wish that you were as accepting of it as the child that I speak of is. Oh and by the way, I’m not gay

    • Ben says:

      01:54pm | 20/07/10

      Paul, if we’re talking about what’s best for a child, all the psych research has the same theme: a child does best when raised by a loving family. It doesn’t actually matter what that family is. Like a lot of people I was raised by a single parent, and missing the other parent doesn’t seem to have made me turn out deprived or screwed up. This whole idea that you need a mother and a father to turn out normal is nothing but outdated tradition. A loving family is enough, whatever that family consists of.

    • Rationalist says:

      07:42am | 14/07/10

      I wonder if the average gay couple in Sydney are richer than the average heterosexual couple? Think about all of the rich gay couples in east Sydney? Hell, if I had a choice of being adopted into a rich gay family or an average heterosexual family I would take the rich gay family since statistically, kids with richer parents do better.

      Reply

    • Peter says:

      03:53pm | 14/07/10

      They are rich because they have no kids to support. 2 incomes, no kids, just too damn easy to breaze through life.. And they want more rights..

    • Peasant #3167 says:

      09:10pm | 14/07/10

      Rationalist, you want to talk statistics? Go and research the statistics of same sex couples and promiscuity, drug use, length of relationship and domestic violence. You will soon rethink what you said.

    • Jeremy says:

      08:37am | 14/07/10

      Another reason to vote against the ALP.

      You cannot stop gay people having children: you’re just determined to make life as difficult for them and their families (and their children) as you can, for as long as you can.

      History will judge you very harshly indeed.

      Reply

    • Mike says:

      09:42am | 14/07/10

      Ageed, Jeremy

    • Tim says:

      10:10am | 14/07/10

      Pffft,
      yes history may judge us very harshly indeed.
      But it will be because we failed to stop the degradation of the family unit through stupid laws designed to go against the best interests of children to appease a select group’s wants.
      We don’t have to stop gays having children, no gay couple can have them now.

    • Sam says:

      10:48am | 14/07/10

      Well…you can…biology, in fact, has.

    • DJ says:

      11:00am | 14/07/10

      Ah Actually Tim they can have children, gays can find surrogates that don’t have narrow minded ideas and lesbians can have IUI, you can’t stop them having kids if that’s what they want you can only stop them from adopting ones not of their blood, but here’s a question, what if the birth mother is voluntarily giving up her rights as she is too young or never wanted them, she gets to choose who she will let adopt her kid, and she may know a gay couple who she will choose and say she was their ‘surrogate’

    • Dave Sag says:

      03:21pm | 14/07/10

      Here here.  What is this?  The 1950s?  Gay men and women ought to have the same rights as anyone else; I mean it is 2010 now right?  We know that being gay is neither a medical condition, nor a lifestyle chice, but just the way the dice rolled for quite a significant part of the population.  Why should these people be denied the happiness that comes with marriage or child-rearing?  What possible harm could come to a child adopted by a gay couple that could not come to them by being adopted by a straight couple?  Indeed I bet the stats would show they are safer and will go on to lead more affluent lives.  Its time for this flagrant and discriminatory homophobia to end.

    • Macca says:

      09:05am | 14/07/10

      “New South Wales has had responsible government since 1856 - over 150 years”.

      I think we’ll find it has only been about 150 years, as nobody in their right minds could call the current NSW state Government “responsible”

      I personally find this article to be complete garbage, allowing a child to a loving household, regardless of the Gender of the Parent(s), is one of the most simple aspects required for their development.

      Reply

    • J says:

      11:34am | 14/07/10

      I completely agree. From the title to the content, I cannot believe that someone would be so closed minded as to honestly think that a child should not be adopted by same-sex couples. There is no right or wrong to parenting and rules regarding gender are just as ridiculous. A ‘man’ had a baby just a few years ago for goodness sake and I know at least two gay couples who have had their own children and make wonderful parents. You are antiquated in today’s society to propose that gay people cannot make amazing and balanced parents.

    • AliceC says:

      11:47am | 14/07/10

      Hear hear Macca!!! : )

    • Muttley says:

      02:52pm | 14/07/10

      Yeah J, and that “man” that had a baby was swinging between the male and female genders as suited. So sounds fairly selfish. Hardly a parenting ideal

    • Dan says:

      01:02am | 15/07/10

      I completely agree Macca! But what do you expect from the current government?

    • J says:

      12:21pm | 15/07/10

      Muttley. I don’t know the couple, but why don’t you think it’s a parenting ideal!? The child born had two loving parents who wanted children. I don’t understand how people can judge a couple that wants a baby when children are born everyday to women who probably should not be allowed to have children and don’t want them (most recent case I can recall was a baby boy [‘Adam’] who was abandoned on a doorstep in Sydney - the mother never came forward. And he was probably lucky. As a childcare worker I see many children who are not adequately cared for by their natural parents). There are ‘ideals’ in this world, but these are generally dictacted by society. Gender bias on parenting ideals should be the LEAST of our worries when considering what is best for a child (as many others have said).

    • Liz says:

      09:08am | 14/07/10

      History will judge whether adoption is the right thing for children, not who adopts.

      Reply

    • Nicole says:

      09:25am | 14/07/10

      “New South Wales has had a responsible government” ???
      That’s where I stopped reading.

      Reply

    • Tess says:

      02:35pm | 14/07/10

      I got a few words further, to the part that ignored the prevelance of orphanages and other forms of non-nuclear family state care during most of that 150 years, and couldn’t go any further because I was laughing too hard.

    • Dan The Man says:

      06:50pm | 14/07/10

      For me it was “Society has accepted the proposition that it is good for a child to be raised by a mother and father in a permanent, preferably married relationship.” Time-out Mr Donnelly, please return to your seat.

      This sort of pole-up-the-rear, WASP, Victorian era attitude is a shingin example of the reasons this country can’t transcend so many issues. and a reason why I maintain that religious right-wingers such as Mr Donnelly are the most scornful, blinkered and un-accepting people in today’s society.

    • the apologist says:

      09:35am | 14/07/10

      Thanks for that Greg, good to hear a bit of common sense in the media/politics once in a while. Your insight into the whole debate being focused on same-sex couples rather than the children themselves was important.

      Reply

    • Jai says:

      01:33pm | 14/07/10

      I agree! The children should be locked up in state institutions. Its for their own good you know. We can’t have families without a mother AND father raising children! While we are at it, lets have a crack at single parents and put their kids into state institutions as well….think of the children!

    • Adopted says:

      09:39am | 14/07/10

      I’m please there are more gay people around.  It means fewer kids in this overpopulated world.  Maybe gays could become more involved with kids from problem families or there could be a scheme where there are de facto adoptions.

      Reply

    • Al says:

      09:54am | 14/07/10

      so if its in the “child’s best interest to be raised by both a mother and a father” where does that leave the thousands of us with deadbeat (hetero) dads who didn’t stick around. Does this mean single mothers aren’t fit to raise kids?

      Reply

    • Tim says:

      10:12am | 14/07/10

      No,
      it simply means that you are in a non-ideal situation.
      But just because your children are in a non-ideal family situation, why should we force that on other children?

    • Al says:

      10:52am | 14/07/10

      as opposed to the non-ideal situation they are already in ... i’d have rather have been adopted by a gay/lesbian couple if my mum weren’t up to the solo parenting thing. Would have opened up more options that just the usual foster care merry go round many kids go through. If committed people are willing to raise kids then it should be encouraged IMO. Gay, straight, single, married, whateva…

    • James1 says:

      11:09am | 14/07/10

      Tim,

      I don’t know the figures on children eligible for adoption who remain in state or foster care, but my issue is that surely a non-ideal situation (as you put it) in a family would be better than being in the care of the state?

    • Bob says:

      11:12am | 14/07/10

      @ Tim, So the only people with proper families in your book are the children of nice Anglican couples who regularly attend church and don’t have any truck with this buggery nonsense which seems so popular these days? You realise the nuclear family as we know it now has only existed for a couple of centuries - it hardly counts as a staple of society. I suppose these are the sorts of opinions you wind up with when every idea you ever had was given to you by your priest, pastor, bishop, shaman, witchdoctor or actupuncturist.

    • Tim says:

      12:32pm | 14/07/10

      Yes Bob,
      there are some silly opinions out there.
      Like the ones from people who assume that those that disagree with this have to be religious nuts or religious in any way.
      Really shows a great depth of thought.

      James,
      The number of children up for adoption is tiny. There is always a shortage of children for willing families to adopt.

      What I would like to know from the people who think that the nuclear family is dead, should we just open it up to everyone then?
      How many children go to single men?
      If a mother and a father don’t matter, then why can’t a couple of friends adopt a child? What’s so special about the parents being in a sexual or romantic relationship? If a stable and loving home is all that matters then why should there be any restrictions?

    • Bob says:

      12:45pm | 14/07/10

      @ Tim,

      By all means explain it to me then, Tim, because I’m at a total loss.
      If it’s not religious then I’m not sure that improves my opinion of the opponents of this move. If you are apparently rational and secular folk, then surely the “Won’t someone please think of the children” argument needs a little fleshing out.
      I’m sorry mate, but I’ve been reading these columns for months and the only plausible explanations of opposition to gay marriage I have come up with are thinly veiled homophobia and religious dogma.
      The entire argument against it is based in blatant fallacies, hypocrisy and double standards.
      Marriage between a man and a woman, best interests of the children etc etc, is basically just saying “this is what we’ve done since I can remember so lets just keep it up.”
      They have no interest in historical context, no interest in the overwhelming opinions of various experts, no interest in the issue of equality and no interest in changing an unsubstantiated status quo that doesn’t affect their day to day lives in any way whatsoever.
      So please, Tim. If my understanding is so shallow, for the love of god enlighten me.

    • James1 says:

      01:06pm | 14/07/10

      Thanks Tim.  I had always assumed that with increasing numbers of kids in foster care, and decreasing numbers of people willing to be foster carers, there would be many kids happy to go to a same sex couple rather than stay in state or foster care.  But, like a great man once said, when the facts change, I change my opinion.  I had no idea there was such a shortage of children out there.

    • Tim says:

      01:40pm | 14/07/10

      James,
      I think there are only 500 or so adoptions every year and most of those (75% i think) are intercountry adoptions of children less than 4 years old.
      There are a growing number of kids in foster care, i think its somewhere between 15000-20000 this year. The problem is, the kids in foster care are often older, often come from broken homes and have often been abused. Homosexual couples would be no more likely to adopt these children than Heterosexual couples are. Its not nice but that’s what happens.

      Bob,
      you have heard of conservatives?
      Maybe you can answer the questions I asked in my last post. Should it just be open slather for anyone who wants to adopt?
      And what is this overwhelming opinions of experts that you talk of? I haven’t seen any presented, the only research i’ve seen on this comes from self-interested groups who have paid for some very suspect studies.
      The usual arguments presented here go along the lines of “there are abusive/bad heterosexual families so gays should be able to join in too. That’s not logical at all.

    • Robert says:

      02:28pm | 14/07/10

      @Tim - Isn’t it more ideal to have two people lovingly raise a child, giving them the best that is on offer, that resort to the farce that is Foster care? (As this is the current alternative to adoption). You only have to look at the statistics on foster care to see this is not always a great environment to raise kids.

    • Bob says:

      02:34pm | 14/07/10

      @ Tim,
      You show me the research showing same-sex parents make bad parents because I sure haven’t seen any - and I’ve looked quite hard.
      All you get is rubbish about the sanctity of the family unit (no historical context because it doesn’t exist, a slight economic argument there but equally applicable to homosexual relationships).
      One recent study (name evades me and I’m working so no time for references today) has tracked the children of lesbian parents from childhood to adulthood.
      The finding? Those children are outperforming the children of “normal” families in academia and socially as well - so there’s at least one off the top of my head.
      And do tell me, what this self-interest among these groups is? I can’t see any motivation other than a demand for recognition as equal parts of our society.
      Are you suggesting that this push is part of the “radical gay agenda” (as Bill O’Reilly likes to call it)?
      Do you think it’s part of a recruitment drive?
      Are you worried this is going to cause a bunch of good christian folk to throw up their arms and declare they may as well switch sides? And even if they did, so what?
      Why do people see homosexuality as an issue when the only issue is equality.
      There are indeed horrible heterosexual families, and I’ve no doubt there are horrible homosexual families - you are correct, that argument is illogical because it is unbalanced.
      Let’s look at the other side, there are some wonderful heterosexual families, so, unless you are suggesting homosexuals are inately horrible people likely to abuse and neglect their children, why not let them join in?
      Explain to me how having a loving and supportive homosexual relationship at the core of a family is so detrimental to us?
      How does a homosexual relationship in any way affect or devalue a heterosexual relationship?
      There are seven billion people on this planet and millions of orphans - what people like Greg Donnelly are saying is it is better to let these kids scrounge through a rubbish tip for a rat carcass to eat than it is to let those dodgy gays get there hands on them.
      That’s your argument as it appears to me, because you have not shown anything to suggest otherwise.
      Answer those questions first because a CSIRO report shall not be forthcoming in the short-term and while we wait, thousands of Australians are told they are second class and not fit to be around children and you seem to find an awful lot of the opponents block out their social diaries on Sunday mornings.

    • Tim says:

      03:55pm | 14/07/10

      Bob,
      the study you talk about is the NLLF study.
      A small self selected group of Lesbians had children who were found to perform better than the average child brought up by heterosexuals.
      I think it involved 70 odd children. Wow.
      If you can’t already start to see the problems with the study then well, i give up.
      There are just as many dodgy studies on the other side of the fence. I’ve read them, they aren’t very persuasive. I don’t think there is any form of consensus on this issue.
      And that’s a lot of assumptions you’ve put in there.
      The self interest among both sides is obvious. They want their “rights” and wants to be paramount, ignoring arguments that don’t suit their agenda.

      There are 500 odd adoptions in Australia every year, only 50 or so local adoptions to couples who don’t know the children. Allowing gay couples to adopt isn’t going to save “millions” of children because adoption is extremely hard to get.
      Single people (gay or straight) can currently apply for adoption but preference is given to heterosexual couples. I believe that we should protect the nuclear family and this preference should continue.
      If equal footing is given to homosexual couples then why not singles or friends or anyone else?
      I’ll say it again, if a stable and loving environment is all that matters then why should there be any restrictions?

    • Bob says:

      04:27pm | 14/07/10

      Absolutely right Tim, why not open it up to singles or anyone else who passes a proper background check?
      As far as I can see the only groups who should be exempted are those with sexual or violent crimes, serious drug or alcohol abuse or other criminal activities in their backgrounds.
      As for your claim that homosexuals are just feathering their own nests, what is your problem with giving people equal rights?
      What I’m inferring from you here is you believe there is you believe there is a reason this shouldn’t happen. 
      So we’ve established there’s a total lack of academic consensus on the issue - wonderful. That makes it a philosophical matter and you’re going to need to justify you assertion that homosexual’s don’t deserve equal rights.
      As for the numbers of adoption, I know of several couples who have fostered more than 100 children, very few of whom ever find stable homes and tend to just get moved around foster families.
      One woman in particular fostered more than 200 children over 20 years - so what’s your problem with letting these children out of foster care and into the adoption system?
      There is no shortage of children in need of homes, not in Australia and not anywhere.
      What you have effectively said is this country is in desperate need of adoption reform, and a grown up debate on that issue shouldn’t include any discussion about how one’s genitals interact with the genitals of one’s significant other.
      Unfortunately mate, the christian view of the world and the family is dead and failing to mitigate the suffering of millions of children world wide and insisting on forcing a harmless group into second class status isn’t going to bring it back.

    • Robert Smissen Rural SA says:

      07:50pm | 14/07/10

      Watch it Al! ! ! I am a non deadbeat hetro Dad, I raised my oldest 3 kids by myself after we turfed their violent mother out (with the help of the police) & am now raising my youngest son because his mother has had no real input since he was 2. (now 14) The gender or # of parents is irrelevant, the input from parent/parents is important

    • Erin says:

      11:00am | 15/07/10

      There has been a lot of debate about fostering vs adoption. Noone can just move kids out of fostering and into adoption.  Fostered children mean that they’re biological parents have not/wil not sign over their parental rights.
      So yes, there are lots of kids in foster care who need homes - so we should make it so that anyone who wants to adopt to be foster parents first for say 2 years, BEFORE they are eligable to adopt.
      Not an ideal solution, but may help the current need for fostering, and enable DOCS to do appropriate monitoring of ANY candidate for adoption prior to procesing it.

    • Casey says:

      09:58am | 14/07/10

      “It is about placing homosexual couples on an equal footing with heterosexual couples”.

      That’s right - it’s an issue of equality.

      There are countless examples of children raised perfectly well by homosexual couples, just as there are countless examples of dysfunctional heterosexual couples that abuse and neglect their children.

      Who can say that homosexual couples cannot provide loving and safe homes for children who most need them?

      Shame on those who do.

      Reply

    • Adam Diver says:

      10:42am | 14/07/10

      I think all things being equal a heterosxual couple should be considered a better option that a homosexual couple. Merely to get an education from both the sexes.

      But since all things are not equal I think the state should realise its lofty goals of great parents is unrealistic. If a child is placed in a loving home, with adequate care then it is very lucky in deed. There is enough dysfunctional families to ensure safety, eductaion and love is more than enough to qualify for adoption.

    • Tropsmurf says:

      11:11am | 14/07/10

      There’s your problem Casey you see this as a ‘right’, it is not.
      Just because homosexual couples could be good parents doesn’t make it a right for them to have children, biologically it is an impossibility.

    • DJ says:

      12:31pm | 14/07/10

      would people stop saying it’s impossible for them to have kids? they can biologically, surrogate or iui, your topic seems to imply that couples with fertility issues shouldn’t have them then

    • Peter says:

      03:56pm | 14/07/10

      @ Casey, i feel no shame in wanting kids to have what you and i had, a mum and dad. Im sorry if a person is gay and cant naturally conceive kids, life is cruel to all of us at times. But we don’t need to deprive kids the chance of a mum and dad on the basis of some gay peoples percieved rights….

    • Hetero, Married, 4 Kids says:

      12:35pm | 15/07/10

      @ Peter.  You take the liberty of suggesting that everyone had a Mother and a Father?  The number of childrenn that grow up with deadbeat Dads is growing all the time.  The children have the right to be placed into the best possible environment.  If some of the best available environments are being withheld from the children because of the ignorance of some adults. 
      Also the notion that it should be banned because it’s not natural?  Should we also ban fertility treatment, IVF and C-section deliveries?  I doubt any of these could be considered “natural”.
      @Greg - next time you get home from a nice dinner at Fred Nile’s house you should go straight to bed and not write an article for The Punch!

    • Peter says:

      05:57pm | 15/07/10

      @ Hetro. Not all dads are deadbeats and probably don’t appreciate being tarnished by the action of a minority. There are no shortage of poor mothers as well…

      And as hard as it is for you to understand, 2 men conceiving kids is NOT natural and the gay adoption debate is ignoring the kids just and just centered on selfish individuals…

    • iansand says:

      10:02am | 14/07/10

      In summary:  This is how it has always been, and it should not be changed.  There may be compelling arguments against adoption by same sex couples, but this is not one of them.

      Reply

    • Dani says:

      02:24pm | 21/08/10

      Neither is “This is how it has always been and so it should be changed ... now”.

    • Gary says:

      10:04am | 14/07/10

      The question that I ask myself is not whether it is right or wrong for same sex couples to adopt but why is it so hard for anyone to adopt. There are lots of children who go from one foster home to another and some never experience a loving stable relationship. Surely the prerequisite should be to give as many children the need that all human beings require and that is love. Does it really matter if people are gay, straight, single, too old, or from a different culture. It is more important to ensure a child is cared for, kept safe and loved.

      Reply

    • Steve says:

      10:44am | 14/07/10

      Couldn’t agree with you more Gary. Sexuality should not be a determining factor in the adoption of a child. If the option for a child cared for by the state is to shuffle from foster home to foster home or be raised in a stable, loving, financially secure, gay couple’s home, you’d be barking mad not to let the child live in the latter.

    • DD Ball says:

      10:14am | 14/07/10

      There is much red tape preventing adoption, so that few children in need are successfully adopted. This is not an Australian problem but world problem. I am disappointed when the red tape and the paucity of successful adoptions becomes another wedge for gay activism. I have met few people who did not feel isolated and alone in their formative teen years, and for gays the issue is worse because with an estimated 1% of the population actually being gay, they probably really are alone. The result being seeking behavior that in other contexts is rightly seen as outrageous. But getting back to the needs of children, they deserve a home .. and they deserve that home not to be dysfunctional. The observation I make is that attention seeking activists do not make good parents. I object to the issue being a wedge to force churches to kneel before anti discrimination legislation, as gay marriage has been used.

      Reply

    • iansand says:

      11:56am | 14/07/10

      The vast majority of gay people are not “attention seeking activists”.  It is just that, for obvious reasons, they are the ones you notice.

    • James says:

      01:46pm | 14/07/10

      Lies lies and damned statistics DD Ball… it is impossible to make any confirmation on ‘what percentage of the population’ are lesbian/gay largely because such studies require a person to “identify as lesbian/gay”. NSW Transport Minister could have been such a person, who is uncounted in such a study.
      But I tell you what, pulling a statistic as low as 1% out of no where really helps solve the problem of homosexual girls and guys feeling less isolated and much more welcome in the community.
      Take a look at your numbers closely in any instance -  We have 6.6Billion + worldwide population.. That makes your 1% equivalent to 66million people. I suggest you should probably stay inside your church all week if you want to avoid that many homosexuals living in the world DD Ball. You’ve got to face it - Homosexuals work to provide for the Australian economy, make the music, art and films that enrich our culture, and compete in the weekend sport you watch on your TV. They are for the large part faceless because they don’t want the attention of people like you who gladly go out of their way to make them feel isolated.

    • DD Ball says:

      05:25pm | 14/07/10

      IanSand, you misread what I wrote.
      James, not my statistic and also not contradicted through my experience.
      Anyone with a heart for the lord is welcome at the churches I frequent. Even the tax collectors.

    • Jane says:

      10:23am | 14/07/10

      Greg, what’s important is that children are raised by people who love them. There is no credible research showing that children are hindered by being raised by same sex couples.

      So using these arguements above, are you arguing that women with children being beaten by their male partners hsould stay for the sake of the children?

      This is just the usual homophobic dribble that thankfully most people can see right through.

      Reply

    • Sam says:

      10:59am | 14/07/10

      That is an absurd line of logic.  You’re comparing apples with oranges.  An abusive partner is a completely different issue to adoption.  That it might be ideal for a child to have a mother and a father has nothing to do with the fact that sometimes people are crap.
      Resorting to calling this article ‘homophobic dribble’ demonstrates an inability to engage properly with the argument at hand.

    • Steph says:

      10:27am | 14/07/10

      And yet in many, if not all, states and territories in Australia, same-sex couples are encouraged to be foster parents. Guess gays are fine to raise kids for years at a time as long as they can’t be recognised as “official” parents. After all as the writer says, this “is about placing homosexual couples on an equal footing with heterosexual couples”.

      Reply

    • jaystar says:

      10:51am | 14/07/10

      children do notice the sex of their “parents” , and balance of gender shouldnt be so badly looked apon by those who have so much excess time to blog and post her by circumstance, I personally know of many people who became gay thru sexual abuse in childhood, that in itself is tragic, a loving balanced childhood should be given to all kids, a gay family cannot guraratee this, regardless, in this modern world, a functioning hetereosexual family is a miracle given the media (owned by guess who) which overmphasises too much evil

      Reply

    • Mike says:

      10:53am | 14/07/10

      So far none of the clients that have walked into my therapy practice have come from same-sex parents; all have come from families with a mum and a dad and where the parenting has been in some way quite dysfunctional. Having two dads or two mums is as good a chance as any, perhaps a greater one, of bringing up kids to feel confident and secure about themselves.

      Reply

    • renee says:

      12:25pm | 14/07/10

      agreed, I got abused by my hetero parents.

      I would love to have been raised by gay/lesbian/transgender people, as long as they didn’t belt me with spanners, they would have been A-OK with me!

    • Elphaba says:

      10:55am | 14/07/10

      What about single parents?  Whether by divorce or the death of a partner?  Are they excused because they’re a victim of circumstance?  Or are the children of failed unions screwed as well?

      Bullshit.  Wake up to yourself.  So long as a child is loved, cared for, not abused, imparted with a kind spirit and their needs put first (within reason - McDonalds is not a need), then who cares who is raising them?

      You wouldn’t have posted this article if you weren’t shit scared that some day, this is going to happen.  Run.  Run for your life!!

      Reply

    • Tropsmurf says:

      10:58am | 14/07/10

      From a biological perspective I think there should always be a preference for a loving male and female influence, after all that is what it takes to ‘make’ a child.
      That being said I would prefer that a loving homosexual couple raise a child than some of the deadbeat hetero ones I’ve seen. Just because you can have children doesn’t mean you should.

      Reply

    • JJJ says:

      11:37am | 14/07/10

      Here, here.

    • Scott says:

      11:00am | 14/07/10

      Greg Donnelly it’s really sad you have confused outdated gender roles and biology with parenting and best interests of Children.

      Can you please explain to everyone the differences a Mother (as in woman) vs. a Father (as in a man) provides when it comes to parenting (other than natural childbirth or breastfeeding) which is irrelevant to your present argument.

      Also could you please provide specific details of the supposed “great deal of evidence presented to the Legislative Council’s inquiry on this very issue that drew the opposite conclusion. Mothers matter. Fathers matter.”

      Reply

    • Julia says:

      11:07am | 14/07/10

      I didn’t even read this. He is an irrelevant man. A union official who has got his pensionable MLC job and a few committees to top up his salary to make it more attractive when he retires.

      Best to just vote him out the first chance you get, NSW. Practice at the next Federal election.

      Reply

    • Bob says:

      11:08am | 14/07/10

      You can’t have gay marriage or adoption. Why not? Because it’s written, that’s why!

      If people like Greg Donnelly weren’t in positions of power arguments like this would be in Monty Python sketches.

      Greg, you and everyone who thinks like you are closed-minded bigots and the sooner you and your ilk are consigned to history the better.

      Reply

    • Zeta says:

      11:09am | 14/07/10

      Greg Donnelly deserves to be an internet meme for some of his speeches in Parliament. It’s hard to decide which one is the most hilarious - his impassioned plea for Cotton On to stop selling children’s t-shirts emblazoned with ‘I’m Living Proof My Mum Is Easy’ is great, but the highlight would have to be his speech for International Women’s Day, with such corkers as ‘I’m connected to women in a range of ways’ and using the phrase ‘Hot Arse’ twice in a single speech - he also has the Legislative Council record for the member to get away with dropping the F bomb the most times in a speech on pornography in service stations, and for speaking for several minutes on the virtues or lack thereof of Lady GaGa’s ‘Telephone’. For the ultimate win, Google ‘Greg Donnelly’ and ‘Rainbow Party’. I loled.

      With a pedigree like that, if anyone could do the Same Sex Adoption debate justice - it’s the G Don.

      Can you imagine, Punchers, what it’s like to be the G Don? Waking up every morning in a world that sexualises teenage girls, demeans women with raunchy song lyrics, subjects us to a constant torrent of pornography and then, to rub salt into the open wound of our once glorious culture, has the temerity to suggest ‘the gays’ should be allowed to marry, and adopt children? Some people think the G Don is a complete goose, for example, the Fairfax press who took great joy in smearing him over those wacky Women’s Day quotes - but I kind of like the guy. The Don has the Zeta Bro Stamp of Approval for today.

      See, as crazy as he is, the G Don is the only member of the NSW Government who is not either corrupt, or completely useless. I might not agree with some of his zaniness, but at least he’s serious about it. In a Government gone crazy, at least we can trust Greg Donnelly to be Greg Donnelly, and that no matter what happens to the great state of NSW, be it electricity crisis, leadership crisis, sex scandal crisis, bathhouse crisis, corruption crisis or crisis crisis - he’ll still be pottering away in the Upper House, complaining about something related to sex.

      I wonder somedays, if I had been adopted by gay parents, just how much more fabulous I’d have grown up to be. I wonder what could have happened in Greg Donnelly’s formative years to make him join the ALP when he’s clearly such an obvious fit for the Liberals?

      Reply

    • MattJ says:

      12:08pm | 14/07/10

      That was pure gold.  Love it.

    • Hel says:

      01:07pm | 14/07/10

      Best punch of the day, for sure.

    • Fred says:

      01:14pm | 14/07/10

      Dear Zeta - please start a blog, something, anything.  I will subscribe asap.

    • Lauryn says:

      03:56pm | 14/07/10

      Zeta, you win the internet.

    • Brad says:

      11:09am | 14/07/10

      By this argument, you would disallow single parents from also having children as it would be entirely detrimental to their mental and physical development. Sure, Clover Moore can be outlandish at times, but this is one of the best proposals I have seen put forward by her. Gay couples are on average more successful and more affluent than their heterosexual counterparts, so I really cannot see a logical reason why we shouldn’t extend equality to all our citizens. Shame on you Greg Donnely.

      Reply

    • Chris says:

      11:23am | 14/07/10

      Surely what matters most is, what is in the best interests of the child? This question rarely, if ever, seems to be asked. It may sometimes appear to be asked but it is the interests of the adults that get put first.
      Some years ago a happily adopted 16yr old of my acquaintance was getting ready to go on student exchange when a social worker contacted the family saying that the birth mother wanted contact. The teen was asked and declined stating that, especially just prior to the student exchange, it would be unsettling.  The social worker was unwilling to accept the answer and tried to prevent the student exchange trip taking place. No doubt pressure was being applied by the birth mother. It took the intervention of an MP and the threat of legal action to get the student away.  On return more demands were made. The student again declined but the details were given to the birth mother anyway because it was considered to in her best interests to meet the child - and the child was told it was in their best interest as well. The meeting was a disaster and very distressing for all concerned. It should never have taken place - yes, mother is in a lesbian relationship and that just added to the distress. The law may protect adult rights but it rarely protects the rights of children,

      Reply

    • Steph says:

      12:37pm | 14/07/10

      Sorry Chris, but I’m confused. You seem to have used the idea that the mother being in a lesbian relationship was a significantly distressful part of this situation. However from what you said, with it essentially being a situation forced upon the 16yo by a social worker, anything would have been distressful. If the mother had 3 other children and huge sums of money it might have been distressful. It would have been distressful if the mother was a drug addict. My point is that, with such an emotionally charged situation any aspect of the mother or her life could be seen to be a distressor.

      I think you’re at least partly blaming this child’s distress on her birth mother’s sexuality instead of the nature of the forced meeting.

    • Muttley says:

      03:04pm | 14/07/10

      Actually, what is written as an aside at the end is that it “added to the distress” not that it was the determining factor.

    • AJ says:

      11:36am | 14/07/10

      Completely disagree with this article.

      To my limited understanding, same-sex couples are permitted to become foster carers in New South Wales (as well as most, if not all, States and Territories in Australia).  IF a same-sex couple is “good enough” to care for a foster child who is possibly in greater need of the type of love and support that only a parent (irrespective of sex) can provide, then why aren’t they considered “good enough” to care for that child on a permanent basis?

      All couples seeking to adopt in Australia have to jump through an endless number of hoops in order to be deemed eligible for adoption and then have to wait and wait and wait until they finally (if ever) manage to adopt a child.  Same-sex couples would have to jump through all those same loops and would face an even longer wait since it is unlikely they would be eligible for intercountry adoptions (given most foreign countries require prospective parents to be “married” (which is not permitted for same-sex couples in Australia) and/or specifically require prospective parents to be a heterosexual couple).

      IF a “mother” and a “father” are essential to raising a child, then when will the government require all heterosexual parents to remain together until their child turns 18? Surely divorce and separation should be prohibited where the couple has a child? That way the child would be raised in the best possible environment. I’m sure I would have had a far happier childhood if my mother had remained with my alcoholic and abusive biological father rather than raising me herself.

      Reply

    • K says:

      11:48am | 14/07/10

      What about the lovely hetro couple who let their daughter starve to death in Nelsons Bay? Oh, but a gay couple would do much worse? Don’t think so.

      Reply

    • the apologiste says:

      12:42pm | 14/07/10

      it’s hardly a good argument that refutes a position because a different situation is wrong….

    • Grant says:

      12:04pm | 14/07/10

      @ Greg

      Considering there is an overflow of children that are in NSW state care at the moment that need to be adopted, then it would prudent to place these children with persons who have both the ability financially and emotionally to look after them. 

      So considering the benefits of being with two parents over state run care, then it should either be two loving foster parents either ‘male male’, ‘female male’ or ‘female female’ or a loving single male or female person. 

      I believe it is less about whether or not it is better for the child, but Greg your own personal prejudices regarding homosexuals.

      Greg’s views include but are not limited to a very embarrassing Parliamentary sermon regarding the personal conflict he feels when he thinks too much about Lady Gaga.  http://www.perthnow.com.au/entertainment/perth-confidential/nsw-mp-greg-donnelly-slams-lady-gaga-in-bizarre-sexually-explicit-speech-to-parliament/story-e6frg30l-1225843381332

      Or even more disturbing when he was asked to apologise to female members of parliament for an outburst where Mrs JILLIAN SKINNER stated that Greg said “He said a scalpel would be taken to the throats of the Liberal Party and The Nationals, particularly the female members“, “under the cover of darkness when everyone is asleep.”.  http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Prod/Parlment/HansArt.nsf/V3Key/LA20060503019

      @ Moderator (this post is considered within the limitations of your terms and conditions)

      Reply

    • iansand says:

      01:11pm | 14/07/10

      Wow.  It is lucky that Mr Donnelly is not a Muslim cleric.

    • jay says:

      01:29pm | 14/07/10

      How on earth is this guy still in a public office!? What a disgrace!

    • Grant says:

      03:20pm | 14/07/10

      @ iansand

      No its worse, because he actually has some power in society as a member of the NSW parliament…

      Ian, google his background and you will find a substantial and disturbing list of behaviours which do not adhere to the title “The Honourable”.

    • Greg says:

      07:06pm | 14/07/10

      HEy Grant what is “state run care”. Just giving you an opportunity to demonstrate your ignorance.

    • Grant says:

      12:03pm | 15/07/10

      @ Greg

      Is this the Greg Donnelly, are you reading the responses to your written piece and responding ?

      Sorry, I realise I did not use the appropriate terminology; I was using casual terms regarding foster carers that work with NSW Community Services.

      By the way you appear to have used a capital E, in “Hey”, just saying.

    • Cameron Price-Austin says:

      12:05pm | 14/07/10

      I won’t comment on the subject of the article itself, but I was struck by your proud assertion of “8,700 citizens of New South Wales petitioning the Parliament”.

      Supporters of an R18+ rating for video games produced a petition with over 90,000 signatures and were ignored, so don’t hold your breath!

      Reply

    • DJ says:

      12:37pm | 14/07/10

      I was quite happy that petition didn’t go through, if you don’t like the look of a game don’t buy it

    • Elphaba says:

      01:02pm | 14/07/10

      He makes a good point though, DJ.  It takes more than petitions…

    • DJ says:

      01:27pm | 14/07/10

      Oh I understand his point, petitions, even rally’s and demonstrations don’t work, was just mentioning that I was happy the R18+ hadn’t gone through

    • Rob says:

      12:19pm | 14/07/10

      There seems to be two common arguments against gay adoption; both of which are, in my opinion, false.

      The first is that because we have looked at something a certain way for a long period of time, that makes it right. By that reasoning we should still accept slavery, racism and sexism. These were all around for a long time but few would argue that they are right.

      The second is that a male and female provide different perspectives that are important for a child’s development. While there is some truth in this view, by logical extension a family unit should consist of Muslims, Jews, Christians, Buddhists, atheists etc because we wouldn’t want children deprived of different religious outlooks; Europeans, Asians, Africans, Aboriginals etc for the different cultural outlooks. So while gender differences do exist, there are plenty of other areas where it is accepted that both parents will be the same.

      There is no ‘ideal’ family unit, but I think that a family situation where the parents are open minded and the children are exposed to people from all walks of life is pretty close.

      Reply

    • Jon says:

      03:00pm | 14/07/10

      Good one Rob!

    • HD says:

      12:21pm | 14/07/10

      I was adopted into what your calling an “ideal” situation.
      Let me tell you that it wasnt. a woman who couldnt have kids, who selfishly adopts and then when gets bored the kid suffers. The man had no interest in the child, the child (me) would have been better off in a home or with a single parent who really wanted a child, a foster home, a gay/lesbian couple etc etc.
      Children dont care who the parents are, they want stability and they want to be loved. if that is provided, then they are on the best footings for happiness and success in their own lives.
      You infer you have the best of intentions for children, however in reality, we have a suplus of unwanted children in this world, our governments have no money to support a seperate system to raise and maintain these children. The current screening process for adoption leaves a lot to be desired, what is your other option… do we deal with unwanted children the same way we deal with unwanted pets? Surely lethal injection at birth must be a better option than gays adopting.

      How about this, why dont we focus our efforts on making the screening process more efficient, and forget about your “ideals” and focus on getting kids into more secure and functional environments and give everyone (anyone) the equal chance to prove their worthiness regardless of race/gender/sexual orientation.

      As Kristine Keaneally has already said…

      “Jesus loved all and he accepted all and for me that is the strongest message that comes out of the gospels. When I see gay and lesbian people giving that unselfish love to a child, that’s something that I … want to support”

      Reply

    • the apologist says:

      12:46pm | 14/07/10

      But Jesus didn’t excuse sin (which is what Keaneally’s comment and your sentiment in quoting it suggests). I think the strongest message that comes out in all the gospels is that wrong is wrong and it can’t be overlooked - thus the very central reason that Christ came. To atone for the sins of sinners.

    • HD says:

      01:54pm | 14/07/10

      @ the apologist
      Judgements aside. What is your proposal to address the problems of the failing adoption service?

    • the apologist says:

      05:15pm | 14/07/10

      @HD: Well, i’m not at all across the logistics of adopting as it stands at present in our nation - so i’ll qualify comment from the start. To make a good comment i’d need to know exactly what the ‘failings’ were I suppose.
      But generally speaking, I think dealing with adoption issues requires more focus on addressing the causes behind adoption issues. It’s one thing to bandage the wound, but much more profitable to address what is causing the real issue. Generally, these problems can include things like: unstable marriages, illicit and irresponsible sex outside of marriage, the kinds of people actually adopting (and their reasons), etc. I do not view the state as central in addressing these issues either - that’s another big problem, most tend to give the state a god-like status and look to it for all the solutions - when it has neither the competence nor the authority to do so (particularly in issues of interfering with the sphere of family-related issues).
      Central to addressing it all is correctly answering the question: what exactly is the nature of the problem? Do you have a take on the nature of the prob?
      Cheers

    • Al says:

      12:25pm | 14/07/10

      I’d suggest attitudes like our MP Donnelly here are not only antiquated but actually contributing to the problem of homeless youth.

      A queer young person is far more likely to end up in a situation where they are unable to live at home, as many parents are actually homophobic to the point of making it unbearable for the kid to stay. (Its not just the usual neglect or abusive situations that lead to the need for adoption in some cases.)

      So not only are you denying kids the opportunity to be raised in a stable environment, you’re views are actually reinforcing the view that gay/lesbian/queer people are somehow less than straight folk. Which in turn will lead to more self-hating queer teens on the streets and in harms way.

      Not only are restrictions on adoption on the basis of sexuality absurd, but it actually contributes to the very problem adoption and fostering is there to help remedy.

      Reply

    • Jenni says:

      01:24pm | 14/07/10

      “Society has accepted the proposition that it is good for a child to be raised by a mother and father in a permanent, preferably married relationship.”

      Without entering into the fact that I disagree upon whether society has accepted this or not, I’d like to point out the following:

      Prior to 1833 *society* accepted that slavery was perfectly acceptable.
      Prior to 1902 *society* accepted that women were lesser beings than men (apparently) and denied them the right to vote, or hold public office.
      Until the late sixties our indigenous people were still considered by *society* to be a lower class than caucasians, and were not allowed to vote in all states.

      In different times in world history, *society* has upheld the discrimination and subjugation of many minorities. Thankfully these views changed over time, allowing greater equality between gender, class and race (though we still have a ways to go). The fight for equal rights by gays and lesbians will - one day hopefully not too far into the future - be seen as another step forward in the evolution of society and humanity.

      Reply

    • Kaeli says:

      07:29pm | 26/08/10

      Yes, but those rights, once upheld, did not trample other rights, such as religious freedoms and the rights of children.  This one may.  There is a great difference between human rights and this.

      I have many Gay and Lesbian friends.  I respect their lifestyle choices, they respect mine - thus, we’re friends.  Does the fact I believe that children deserve a loving family that consists of both a mother and a father mean I hate gays?  Many on this discussion board are quick to judge anyone who believes this way, and based only on this one opinion would say that I do.  I am no more ‘homophobic’ than I am a ‘bigot’, and I am neither.  Is it not bigotry to imply that anyone with this belief is a religious fanatic, or an antiquated fool?  Such an idea is ridiculously narrow-minded, in my opinion. 

      This is not an issue of humanity.  Many of the Gay activists cry, ‘You must not just tolerate how I am, your beliefs must bow to it.’  That, to me, goes a lot further than an issue of humanity, and becomes a power play that quashes all in its path.  Imagine if we were to accept every natural urge that people claimed they were born with and made it law - all on the basis that it is how they are and it would be discriminatory to do otherwise.  Such an idea would be ludicrous, and thus, I sincerely hope that people would examine this issue carefully, before jumping on the ‘hate’ wagon against the people who believe in traditional families.  This issue is far reaching, and will affect the lives of so many people, in so many ways - much more than ‘can gay people call themselves a married couple.’

    • Jai says:

      01:28pm | 14/07/10

      There is an overflow of children waiting adoption in NSW state care.

      Rather than allow children to be raised by a caring homosexual couple, you would rather the children stay in state institutions, without any chance of a family life ?

      Are you mad?

      Reply

    • mark says:

      01:36pm | 14/07/10

      This is one of the most bias articles I have had the displeasure of reading. Are you seriously saying that a child is better of in the care of the state, with no actual mother or father than the with a gay couple? You also fail to mention the thousands of children who are brought up with single parents who turn out completly fine. If you are worried about role models, there are plenty of other places children can find male or female role models besides their parents, school or through sport is just two of those places.  I am deeply saddened by your views and hope it is the minority. I find it hard to understand how people feel the need to give there opinions on issues that are not relevant to them, or that they have not experienced themselves, it is highly iggnorant. It does not effect your life so why should you feel the need to fight against it? Your article gives the impressions that gay couples are in a different class and should be treated differently, if that isn’t discrimation what is. You also imply it is selfish for gay couples to want to adopt. I believe it is selfish not to, for it takes away the oppurtunity for the child to be brought up in a family enviroment, and for what? To justify your personal opionion that chidren and better off with a mother and father? Ridiculous. If anything a gay couple who want to adopt are picking up the pieces left behind by the hetresexual couple who concieved the child and for whatever reason were unable to provide for them. I find this admirable, not selfish.

      Reply

    • The Badger says:

      01:44pm | 14/07/10

      Say no to gay marriage and say no to gay adoption.

      Why is this even being considered?

      Stop the madness.

      Reply

    • Phil says:

      03:01pm | 14/07/10

      +1 badger.

      Enough madness

    • AliceC says:

      05:56pm | 14/07/10

      Say no to Badgers!!! Why? Just because!

    • Jane says:

      06:26pm | 14/07/10

      If God Had Wanted Me To Be Accepting Of Gays, He Would Have Given Me The Warmth And Compassion To Do So.

    • TheRealDave says:

      01:56pm | 14/07/10

      I’d far rather, as a heterosexual bloke, long term gay couples provide a family environemnt thats stable, provides for them, cared about them, love them and give a sheltered upbringing than these poor kids that some of the grubby welfare breeding foster parent industry ferals house like battery hens in a run down weatherboard home in the western suburbs and are only doing it to supplement their decades long pensions.

      Reading this ‘article’ and I use the term loosely, rather than the more apt religious inspired homophobic rant in the same vein as the handwringing preachers wife from the Simpsons ‘Won’t Somebody Please Think of the Children’ shrill cries, you’d think we were still living in the 1950’s.

      Reply

    • Kate says:

      03:21pm | 14/07/10

      Best comment I’ve read all day (and I’m from the western suburbs).

    • hmm says:

      01:57pm | 14/07/10

      I think what you’re all missing is there are actually so few children available for adoption, both in Australia and worldwide.  Just because there are many foster children needing homes, does not equate to adoption.  That is why they are called foster children.  They are not up for grabs by gays/straight or anyone in between.  Whilst there are huge numbers of hetero couples wanting (unsuccessfully) to adopt, gay couples will never get a look in.  It’s just plain selfish to think they should get preferential treatment.  Comments above about gays being financially better off than straight people are just crap.  Money BTW does not make a good parent.  Mothers and fathers are unique and offer different perspectives on raising a child.  This cannot be imitated by a gay couple.  People arguing about child abuse cases with straight couples are also missing the point.  Statistically there will always be bad apples in any group of people, gays not excepted.  Man + man does not = baby, just like woman + woman does not = baby.  I have absolutely no problem with gays, however they need to stop competing with mother nature.  They will never win.  When will these selfish, loud, obnoxious, in your face people get it??

      Reply

    • HD says:

      02:11pm | 14/07/10

      I think Clover’s bill is based on equal opportunity rather than preferential opportunity. The existing screening service just won’t discriminate a case based on sexual preference of the individuals involved in the process.

    • Kordez says:

      02:16pm | 14/07/10

      “I have absolutely no problem with gays, however they need to stop competing with mother nature.  They will never win.  When will these selfish, loud, obnoxious, in your face people get it??”
      I’d say someone has a problem..

      Scientists, doctors and humankind worldwide competes with mother nature every day, from China controlling the weather to the yearly voluntary flu shot.
      Gay rights groups are not fighting mother nature nor are they are seeking adoption for all gay couples, what they most want to see is a fair and non discriminatory legislation within Australia.
      Using your own argument against you; if there isn’t enough children for married couples to obtain through adoption, what’s the problem with ridding the legislation of discrimination against same sex couples? As you say, they are highly unlikely to obtain custody of a child anyway.

    • Fred says:

      04:42pm | 14/07/10

      @ hmm - nobody is asking for ‘preferential’ treatment, it’s equality they’re asking for.

    • Runs With Scissors says:

      05:57pm | 14/07/10

      Continuing with your argument then, heterosexual couples need to stop competing with nature too. Stop IVF. If they want a child to love badly enough then they will love any child. Let them adopt the fostered kids.

    • D says:

      02:10pm | 14/07/10

      The writer must live in a very sheltered world, if he isn’t aware of the numerous children growing up with only the support of one parent.  I am adopted, and my adoptive father died when I was 6 years old.  Does that make my childhood fundamentally flawed in someway? 

      You cannot ever guarantee a child two parents - one father and one mother.  Never.  It is an extremely unwordly and naive individual that doesn’t understand the realities of life. 

      Children want to be loved, they want to be wanted.  While I lacked a father growing up, my plethora of male relatives were there to help fill the gap.  It’s called extended families, it’s called community support.  Remember how it takes a village to raise a child?  That villiage isn’t a gated community with only “the right kind of people” living that. 

      As for children not asking to be raised by two mothers or two fathers - that means little, when children are conditioned by their surroundings.  My daughter is an only child and has never asked for a baby brother or sister.  So, clearly, she doesn’t want one.  And yet, if her grandmothers started telling her to ask when Mummy will have another baby, I imagine she would start parrotting that back.

      Reply

    • TheRealDave says:

      02:11pm | 14/07/10

      “I think what you’re all missing is there are actually so few children available for adoption, both in Australia and worldwide”

      There are plenty of orphans up for adoption all over the world but there are two main problems (imnsho):

      1) Corrupt 3rd world officials with their hands out stuffing the process up
      2) Not everyone is Angelina Jolie. People are picky, gay or straight, they don’t want a black, asian etc kid, they want a kid that looks like them.

      Reply

    • Andrew says:

      03:10pm | 14/07/10

      Agreed but some people are also worried because adoptive parents and children do not enjoy the same rights as others with respect to being free from interference in their relationship. Natural parents of adoptees have rights that can cause severe stress to relationships. Not all are the sort of happy reunions that people see on “Can We Help?” - far from it.  There are far too many people out there who are saying “you should feel guilty” and/or “you should feel some sort of emotional bond with your natural parent/child”. People may have questions but, for many, it is a matter of “I would like to know that they are well and happy” and the meeting is more than they want or need and leads to all sorts of complications. I know. My family had to move in order to get away from my birth mother.

    • Z says:

      02:15pm | 14/07/10

      but some adults want to create new rights for themselves

      WTF???? What assholes, wanting equal rights!! Yeah, we should string ‘em up from the nearest tree. Since when was it the act of a free country to demand someone present reasons why they should have rights? Surely the better way is to only remove people rights if there is demonstrable cause? But all your arguments were appeals to authority, and those kinds of arguments are mostly made by a certain type of person…

      What a ridiculous piece. Believe it or not, not all mothers are good mothers, and not all fathers are good fathers. Gender roles are old hat, and to think that one gender has a specific role that cannot be filled by the other is absurdly ignorant. Add something to the debate or GTFO. You’ve added nothing but the same old FUD that’s been thrown around by the ignorant “down the ages for as long as anybody can remember”.

      The fact of the matter is, people such as yourself don’t actually think about the issue, you only think about ways to validate your preconceptions.

      Stating that no child has ever asked for two dads is the most absurd and stupid comment I’ve ever heard. What next? Maybe we should ban people who drive Toyota Camrys from becoming parents because no child has ever “expressed a desire” to have a parent with a Toyota Camry! How about instead of asking that stupid question you ask all the kids with two dads/mums how they feel?Believe it or not, there are a number of places that do allow it and guess what - the world hasn’t ended. God has not smote the unworthy, and crime and mental health statistics are no different either.

      I can’t wait for everyone to jump to the authors defense over this. It seems that it’s all fine to oppress people, but to call someone an asshole for doing the oppressing is crossing the line.

      Reply

    • occipocci says:

      02:30pm | 14/07/10

      For crying out loud! We have bigger issues in children’s lives than this. Children are being raised by drug addicted and irrespomnsible parents, or languishing int he foster care system and we are worried about same sex couples adopting?!?!

      Reply

    • Greg says:

      02:53pm | 14/07/10

      Not as easy a question as it first appears. At the most basic level, the two ingredients that go into making a child are a mother and a father (not dissing the IVF crew and their kind, they have the same ingredients, just from a different supermarket that “home delivers”). On that basis, gay couples by definition automatically disqualify themselves from being parents, in the maternal sense at very least.
      Beyond this rather naive perspective, however, there are doubtless many couples out there who could more than adequately provide loving, nurturing, well adjusted homes to children whose own maternal parents aren’t around for a myriad of possible reasons. Why shouldn’t those children have access to such a home, and in extension, the prospect of a life that could prove to be infinitely richer for its possibility than for its prevention?
      There are already ‘selection criteria’ in the form of pre-screening of prospective (currently heterosexual) adoptive parents. Logically an equivalent test could be applied to gay couples .
      The enduring question, it would appear, relate to the merits (and ‘demerits) of having a child reared by two members of the same sex. No easy answer, however, for the reasons above, I do quite strongly agree with the author Greg’s premise of preventing it happening on account of the fact it has never happened before. This is neither a progressive, nor logical approach, and one which needs to be addressed if the “frightful” prospect of change is to be averted.

      Reply

    • Zeta says:

      02:56pm | 14/07/10

      A serious point about same-sex adoption:

      Both sides of the argument are wrong. Same sex couples aren’t somehow in contradiction of human nature for raising a child - but on the flipside, it’s no more natural for a heterosexual couple to engage in parenting either. Humans aren’t designed for monogamous relationships and individual child rearing. We know this because of science. People on both sides of the argument aren’t fans of science - Donnelly’s side because, well, God and stuff. The pro-same sex adoption side, because they’re so blinded by the concept of their ‘rights’ they haven’t realised it’s a scientific issue.

      The concept of parental rights stems from our sexually possessive culture. We know from studying Bonobos, our closest simian relatives, that prior to the agrarian revolution some 10,000 years ago, humans stomped about the young globe as tight knit groups of sexually liberated, hairy cave brothers and sisters. When a sexy cave couple got it on, probably in full view of the tribe, since we didn’t have a lot of hang ups back then, the resulting off spring would have been raised by the extended family.

      We might argue other wise, but scientifically, there is no evidence to suggest humans can instinctively recognise their own young. That kind of cognition requires sharp senses beyond what we’d evolved to need, and having lived in this small groups for 50,000 years before agriculture, we’d never needed them. A child born in 8000BC would not have known, nor needed to know who their parents were, because everyone they knew would have been their parents.

      What passes for instinctual offspring recognition today is the result of millenia of animal husbandry. In all likelyhood, ancient man wouldn’t even have known sexual intercourse resulted in pregnancy. The advent of agriculture created these possessive parenting traits. Firstly, raising animals taught us that the off spring of certain couplings would have shared traits, thus enabling us to recognise our own children in a sexually liberated environment. Secondly, the creation of farms necesitated handing said farms onto children, so knowing who your children were was vital. And so we moved from an egalitarian, proto-commune of hunters and gatherers who swaped partners a lot more than they changed their underwear (or loin cloths or whatever) to a culture that valued possessions - most importantly wives and children.

      This whole debate continues to treat children as possessions. Something that a couple needs to ‘have’, like an LCD television, or a kitchen island, or a print of one of those black and white city scapes in the bathroom.

      But as an animal, that’s not the case. We were meant to share the responsibility of raising children with the whole community.

      I support same sex couples having foster children, since that’s an expression of the community raising children that would otherwise be left behind. But letting them pick children from a catalogue like they’re going to Ikea is a bridge to far.

      We don’t just need to rethink this adoption issue, but the way we raise children completley. Ten thousand years ago, we knew that raising children was an important enough job to be shared with the whole community. We can’t continue to close off relationships into tiny units because a Church, or an Establishment says so.

      If you want your mind blown like mine was, read:  Sex at Dawn: The Prehistoric Origins of Modern Sexuality by Christopher Ryan and Cacilda Jethá for more on this fascinating topic.

      Reply

    • AJ says:

      04:13pm | 14/07/10

      I’m normally a big fan of your posts, but this statement confounds me:

      “I support same sex couples having foster children, since that’s an expression of the community raising children that would otherwise be left behind. But letting them pick children from a catalogue like they’re going to Ikea is a bridge to far”.

      Where do same sex couples go to pick children from a catalogue? Is it at Ikea or is it somewhere else? Can straight couples also pick children from this catalogue or do they have to pick their children from a separate catalogue?  Is the catalogue for straight people the same one that Hollywood celebrities pick their children from? If I obtain a copy of that catalogue, can I choose a variety of children of the same ages and ethnicity assortments as Angelina Jolie’s children (excluding her natural ones of course)?

      If a same-sex couple is “suitable” to be foster carers, then why can’t they become the permanent parents of their foster children or of a child that is available for adoption outside of the foster care system (provided they meet all the same requirements that a straight couple have to meet other than the pesky “one male, one female” requirements)?

    • iansand says:

      04:31pm | 14/07/10

      Extrapolations from pan panicus (Bonobos) are dangerous.  Even though they may be our closest relatives, they are a lot closer to pan troglodytes (Common Chimpanzee).  Those trogs are pretty mean at times and the more research is done the meaner they turn out to be.  There is no reason to think that close genetic bonds have a lot to do with similar tribal behaviour.

    • Kordez says:

      05:04pm | 14/07/10

      @Zeta, I liked your first post better and am often sceptical when you have a serious post to make.

      Children are treated as possessions in a divorce just as much as they are when adopted.

      There’s more documentation and evidence that Christ existed then the human behaviours you’ve colourfully explained from 10000 years ago. So lets entertain the idea that you and Christopher Ryan are right. 10000 years ago we didn’t know how to write or know what the sun was, and the only things that mattered were who was the strongest and the reproduction of offspring. How far we’ve come, the majority of the human race have evolved into a races that work together to achieve the same results as we previously did, just in a more efficient way. Humans also live twice maybe three times longer now too..
      I’m also a believer of evolution, so found your history lesson was informative, but your interpretation is misguided. I agree that there is an importance that the community helps raise a child, and they do for 13-14 years at school then in the remaining years to 25 in the workforce.
      The only thing that’s changed is a child is conditioned to family values prior to attending school, and there is no reason why a same sex couple family should be considered any different to the many different combinations of people that make up Australian families. I’d agree that the church plays no part in the upbringing of a child, so their opinion on the matter should be considered bull shit.

    • Elphaba says:

      06:01pm | 14/07/10

      Sounds like those polygamist Mormons in “Big Love” have got it right…

    • Jojo says:

      03:01pm | 14/07/10

      In some cultures women are married to many men. In some cultures men are married to many women. In some cultures, men are hand picked off certain families, raised as women and perform womenly duties which would include being “married” to another man - and although they are both biologically men the “man” is considered a woman.

      Going by the writer’s point of view, he probably means only the recent happenings of the white, western world.
      Even quite a long time ago the western man could marry more than one wife if he could afford it.

      Today there are many plural marriages born out of culture, religion or both. There are also many monogamous marriages and relationships born out of the above.
      Who are we to deem ours ‘superior’ so long as all are happy, consenting individuals and all are treated fair and equally, not oppressed or forced into it?

      I for one believe that the sexuality of a person does not dictate whether they will be good or bad parents, whether their relationship is “doomed” to failure or set to flourish. It all depends on the individual - their sexuality is irrelevant.

      I’ve heard of gay couples who raise perfectly decent, happy, successfully and balanced individuals who become model citizens. I would rather a child come from a happy, healthy and loving marriage of two people - gay or not - than be dumped into a bad, terrible marriage just because it suits a particular mold on paper.

      Reply

    • Jon says:

      03:12pm | 14/07/10

      Wow, when one considers all the atrocities inflicted upon children all over the world, the possibility of adoption being opened up to gay couples can hardly be considered worthy of an outcry.
      It’s quite simple - give gay couples the right to marry. Then many of these other debates will be obsolete.

      Reply

    • AdamC says:

      03:14pm | 14/07/10

      This is not nearly so complicated an issue as certain people are trying to present it. Adoption by gay couples is not (and should not be treated as) a front on which to out-flank opposition to gay marriage.

      In my view, some individual gay couples would no doubt be better adoptive parents than some individual straight couples. However, in general terms, a mother and father are preferable as optive parents when compared to a gay couple. I don’t think there is actually much dispute about this point except on both extreme fringes of the debate.

      Surely it should be possible for even NSW to come up with a system that does not discriminatorily preclude gay couples from adopting, while also recognising that a mum and dad is best of all for raising kids. We manage similar points-based systems for immigration, for example.

      Reply

    • Martin says:

      03:40pm | 14/07/10

      I looked up the Author’s bio and expected him to be from the DLP, Family First or some other right wing religious party. Instead I find to my absolute horror and disgust that not only is he an elected representative of the ALP, he is a Government whip.

      How can dinosaurs like Greg be tolerated in any party that sees its self as progressive and has a belief in equality?

      Reply

    • Grootheblunderer says:

      03:45pm | 14/07/10

      Nothing to say other than the whole argument is based on a false premise.

      The Man/wife nuclear family has only been the fundamental unit few a few hundred years.  Historically, worldwide there have been a wides range of family/tribal models that do include monogamous couples, but also a whole raft of others.  Even the “modern” family has variations based on broken relationships which are arguably harmful for children.

      There is no reason which can be shown to be true in fact that children need anything other than caring and nurturing role models.  Gender is largely irrelevant.

      Reply

    • bec says:

      08:52am | 15/07/10

      Actually, an extended family unit has been the norm. The nuclear family unit is a remarkably twentieth century convention.

      There’s nothing wrong with the nuclear family, but… well, it’s not the *only* gay in the village, so to speak.

    • Georginorx says:

      04:11pm | 14/07/10

      I have friends and friend of friends in same-sex relationships and they’ve got children. All examples I have actually encountered of same-sex parents have shown their family environment to be positive and funtional. Surrogate and IUI options will always be an option for producing families in a same-sex scenario, so why not open the option for parents to instead adopt and give a child in foster care a stable family environment with all the benefits of having loving parents?
      BTW I support the idea of opening adoption to other family units on the condition of screening for a stable income and supportive family environment.

      Reply

    • Gordo says:

      05:15pm | 14/07/10

      Why does it matter what your sexuality is to adopt?

      When you have kids (I’ve got a 4yo and a 6yo) your sex life goes out of the window anyway!

      So gays and lesbians.  You’re welcome to adopt.  Just don’t say you weren’t warned!!!

      Reply

    • Kordez says:

      05:44pm | 14/07/10

      Had a chuckle at your post Gordo, your quite correct. Daily becomes Weekly that becomes Monthly and then if your lucky becomes special events (if you remember the anniversary or birthday.)

    • Runs With Scissors says:

      05:29pm | 14/07/10

      If dead beat, scum of the earth heterosexuals have the right to be parents then homosexuals have the right to be parents too.

      Reply

    • Z says:

      05:39pm | 14/07/10

      Oh ho ho and guess what! SINGLE parents are allowed to adopt in Australia. So that pretty much puts the authors whole argument into shambles. Not a leg to stand on.

      Reply

    • Tim says:

      10:11am | 15/07/10

      So are gay singles, so that pretty much puts your whole argument in shambles.
      Preference goes to couples however, so it is almost impossible for a single person (gay or straight) to get a child.
      The proposed law would see gay couples get equal preference to hetero couples, which is what the author is arguing about.

    • MK says:

      05:59pm | 14/07/10

      Right, so my father is the scum of the universe quite frankly and I was raised by THREE ‘mothers’. My mother. My Grandmother. My Great Grandmother. Explain to me, please, the difference. I had PLENTY of male role models in my life by way of teachers, family friends, uncles, cousins, my godfather and plenty more. I missed out in NO WAY. And I can safetly say I have never felt that.

      The important thing is that a child grows up in a loving FAMILY. The concept of what a family is has changed dramatically over the years, so to anybody who thinks that there is a set idea of what a family ‘should’ be i.e. two parents, two children, a dog and a white picket fence, needs to take a closer look at the world. A child may grow up with two Mummies or two Daddies, but chances are they will have plenty of Uncles, Grandfathers, Cousins, Teachers and friends to play an important role and be a solid influence in their lives.

      Reply

    • Jamie says:

      07:10pm | 14/07/10

      Dangerously narrow-minded article.

      For those who say that well, there aren’t that many children to adopt anyway. Bear in mind that there are a lot of kids in foster care and there are a lot of kids who are returned to abusive parents because of smiliar thinking demonstrated in the article. Results of research has shown that there is a high rate of courts returning children to dangerous/abusive environments because they believed it would be better if the kids were with their parents (one mom & one dad) then to go into state care or be adopted by other people. Which is ridiculous.

      I think if you could open up the pool of potential good parents; I say go ahead. Their sexual preference shouldn’t matter. If they can provide a good home, they should be up for consideration. Maybe with more options, children won’t be stuck forever in foster care or under the state’s care or with abusive families.

      For anyone protesting that gay people would not make good parents: Explain then why they are allowed to be foster parents but not allowed to adopt. It makes no sense.

      This whole ‘WHO WILL THINK OF THE CHILDREN’ in the article is a quick, one sentence brainwashing sentence, bringing out the instinctive agreement in people without needing to present a solid case. If the writer really thought about the children, he wouldn’t let his narrow minded thinking block out a whole set of potential good parents.

      Reply

    • AM says:

      08:34pm | 14/07/10

      Those in the minority ALWAYS scream the loudest, put it to a referendum and be pleasantly shocked. /Thread

      Reply

    • Beka Hunter says:

      09:43pm | 14/07/10

      I can’t believe that people with these narrow-minded, old fashioned, prejudiced ideas are actually employed by a (semi) respectable publication. I know there are bigots out there, but silly me, I thought that they were fast becoming the problem of trailer parks and old-folks homes.  The fact that something this vile can still be linked to by a site like news.com.au, where anyone can read it and assume that all Australians are this bigoted makes me *furious*.

      For the record, I’m a lesbian, and I am hoping to adopt in the future, because I believe that there are too many people in the world already, and far too many children who aren’t being loved enough.  To insinuate that a child would be better off raised in foster care or a group home than to be exposed to someone like me makes me feel almost physically sick.

      Crawl back under your rock, Greg Donnelly, you disgust me.

      Reply

    • kate says:

      02:11pm | 15/07/10

      i support you Beka!

    • N says:

      10:45pm | 14/07/10

      Greg should have enough spine to say he hates gays because Jesus tells him so. He’s a churchy cyborg, trying to rid the world of all the things the Bible says we shouldn’t have. What I can’t stand is that he hides the fact that Jebus is the reason he’s doing it. He’s not representing his electorate. He’s representing his imaginary boss in the sky, and by not saying so, he’s being dishonest.

      Reply

    • Robert Smissen Rural SA says:

      11:24pm | 14/07/10

      What is the bet that the bloggers against gays fostering would be against muslims, black people or anyone not like them being in control of kids

      Reply

    • Kate says:

      12:57am | 15/07/10

      i knew reading this article would make me angry. that being said i would like to disagree with many of you points, including your premise. But i think you are so content with the idea that you are right that you’re not even a little open to the possibility that you may not have considered everything.
      i work in child protection- yes i made this something that i spend much of my life doing, it’s not something that i just flippantly comment on every now and then without due consideration.
      Let me make it clear. children do have a hierarchy of needs, and for children in need of care and protection (and thus new care givers) the sex and or sexual orientation of those caregivers is NO WHERE NEAR the most important thing to consider.
      When you have spent months trying to find a child an appropriate, stable, safe, nurturing, loving, supportive, understanding, culturally appropriate care giver that the child can connect with then and only then should you comment on what ‘type’ of people/ couples etc should be left off the ‘option list’. (and i say this because at that point you will have a VERY different and more informed perspective).
      I think you are not thinking about what is in the child’s best interest, but rather you are furthering your own agenda and ignorance in a thinly veiled attack on homosexuals.
      I am a heterosexual female and i fully support gay couples raising children, and have in fact read numerous studies that are clear in the benefits of this.  I also fully support more traditional parenting models, but i at least am a realist and know that these ‘traditional’ options are not always available.  Contrary to what you believe ‘society’ does not always ‘step up’ for vulnerable children, if you knew some of the things i know you would weep for the children ‘we’ ignore. So please get a new agenda, stop trying to cut down those that want to help and step up in a real way yourself!

      Reply

    • Pete says:

      09:23am | 15/07/10

      Is the NSW ALP running some sort of internal competition to see who can be the biggest wanker in the party, before losing government, glad I dont live there anymore.  Although, I have to say you keep us entertained. I always thought the govt whip kept the troops disciplined and in line, with you in the job what hope as madam premier got. Even barry is playing it safe by saying nothing and by doing so not giving the ALP the usual amunition

      Reply

    • Jon Underwood says:

      09:56am | 15/07/10

      You git.  Gays and lesbians make just as good or just as incompetent parents as straights.  Being a breeder does not make one a good parent by default.

      If I was Clover I’d propose a private members bill to ban happyclapper nutjobs from adopting kids - at least it’d save the kids from being forcibly converted into more nutjob happyclappers.

      Reply

    • Trevor says:

      10:27am | 15/07/10

      The truly odd bit of thinking that always seem to creep into this debate is based on some vague, unstated idea that parents are THE role models for children, rather than AMONG the role models for them.

      I’m perfectly happy to accept that a child needs both male and female role models - but how do you get from that to ‘a child needs a father and a mother’?  No-one would seriously argue that the children of a heterosexual couple have only role model of each gender.  There are plenty of other role models besides the parents: extended family, teachers, neighbours, leaders of social activities and so on.

      For the children of a heterosexual family, all these other role models will be acknowledged.  But move to a homosexual couple, and suddenly it’s all “oh no, they’re missing the role model that’s vital to their development!”

      Reply

    • MK says:

      02:07pm | 15/07/10

      Hear, hear!

      The idea of children needing both a ‘Mother’ and a ‘Father’ - do we want children to think there’s something wrong with themselves or their peers if they don’t fit this particular family ‘mold?’ All this talk runs the risk of creating a very damaging social stigma.

    • kj_storm says:

      10:30am | 15/07/10

      I have to say that I am concerned about this article and some of the reactions in the comments. I have always believed that Australia is a very tolerant country depite the occassional bad news stories. I always attributed that to a couple of idiots rather than the majority.

      I have looked at adoption. I would really like a family and being that my mother fostered kids while we were growing up I knew that there are a lot of kids out there who really need someone to love them. My sister and I were raised by my single mother and suffered no worse for it. I believe that the idea that a mother and a father is needed is ridiculous. All a child needs is someone to love them, to help them on the way to who they are to become and to set boundaries when needed. If that is a single mother/father or two mothers/fathers or a combination the most important thing is that someone is loved.

      As so many of you have pointed out there are a lot of kids who need loving homes in NSW. The requirements to be a hetrosexual couple to adopt limits a lot of people who would be willing to open their heart and homes to these children.

      For myself as a single I am unable to adopt in NSW through the unknown adoption. I am now looking at other options for a family but I cant help but feel sorry and a little bit sad that I haven’t been able to help one of these children.

      May I also suggest to those people who are homophobic to actually get to know a person who is gay or lesbian. You might be suprised. Several of my friends I had known in excess of 6 months before I realised they were gay. I have also seen them with neices, nephews and children of friends and would have no qualms appointing them guardians of my children in the case that something happened to me.

      Reply

    • Erin says:

      10:48am | 15/07/10

      “overriding force behind this drive for change in the adoption laws is not children but same-sex couples.”
      Very well noted!

      Reply

    • Aero says:

      05:59pm | 16/07/10

      .... Because two-day-old babies have prejudices already, right? That, and they can speak, read, and use computers, too? It makes no sense that you use the argument that it is same-sex couples who are trying to make gay adoption legal, and not the children themselves.
      At the end of the day does it really matter whether the parents are gay or not? If the child is happy, healthy and well looked-after, then what does it matter the gender/s of the parents?

      Remember, children aren’t born with prejudices. Society drills it into them later.

    • John in Alice says:

      10:59am | 15/07/10

      I believe that gays ought to be able to adopt - only children old enough to comprehend the situation they are getting into, and make a choice.

      Reply

    • Trevor says:

      12:12pm | 15/07/10

      @John, what exactly is it that you think they are ‘getting into’?

      I fail to see how you could require children to make a choice that is essentially based on the sex life of adults.  The child is NOT going to be involved in that sex life - if indeed, as another poster has wryly observed, the couple’s sex life survives the arrival of a child.

      The only thing the child should be worried about is having a safe, secure, loving environment.

    • Robert Smissen Rural SA says:

      07:28pm | 15/07/10

      Is tat John as in Alice in Wonderland? ?

    • Dawson says:

      11:11pm | 15/07/10

      Greg Donnelly, you seem to have completely forgotten about all of the single parents, whether it be because of a death or even a simple divorce. Most of the time in these situations, the child only has one parent available to them, meaning they are either missing a father or a mother. A homosexual couple is much the same genderwise - they are either missing a mother or a father. Instead of one of each, they have two loving parents of the same gender.

      That, and you lack this idea of “equality” with which this country sells itself so much.

      Reply

    • Chris says:

      12:21am | 16/07/10

      I do not support gay adoption or gay surrogacy. Children need both male and female role models as parents. As someone who works with many children I know that the lack of a constant role model of the same sex is a huge destabiliser in their lives. I am not a conservative either. Children should be a result of a mum and dad and grow up with a mum and dad.

      Reply

    • Peasant #3167 says:

      08:40am | 16/07/10

      Why is it every time some a minority group scream to have something they can;t have they must always raise the most extreme circumstances to justify their wants. For example “I want a baby in my male/male relationship because we will make better parents than those drug addicted alcoholic dole bludgers that practise ritual animal killings”.
      Lets’ compare apples with apples, two loving parents male and female. Two loving parents male and male. I know which one I’d rather grow up in. And my feelings are the vast majority, so gay people accept natures way, if nature made you gay, she also made you childless.

      Reply

    • Dawson says:

      05:55pm | 16/07/10

      Remember, Peasant #3167, that children are not born with prejudice. It is basically handed to them with a list of societal expectations of them. Someone growing up with two fathers or two mothers doesn’t know any different, therefore your “I know which one I’d rather grow up in” argument is flawed. A child in a same-sex parent household has grown up with the two parents, and love them just the same as a child growing up in a hetero parent household loves their parents.

      And, just to be honest, I have never heard anyone say “I want a baby in my male/male [you’ve managed to make lesbians void of this bebate, might I add] relationship because we will make better parents” than a hetero couple. Nobody has said that all hetero couples are “drug addicted alcoholic dole bludgers that practise ritual animal killings”, it is simply you who has said that, making your first sentence not only irrelevant but false. YOU are the one going to the “most extreme circumstances”.

    • Chrissy says:

      09:04pm | 01/08/10

      My father raised two girls from the ages of 3 and 4 1/2 by himself, due to the death of our mother.

      The lack of a mother figure growing up caused not only significant heartache but also a huge deficit in our social adaptability and confidence that affects us to this day.

      Kids need both their mums and their dads.  If the gay lobby were honest and not so focused on their own wants they would agree that it is in the best interests of a child to be with a heterosexual couple.

      Reply

    • Patrick James says:

      11:57am | 03/08/10

      Great post, Chrissy. Your personal experience carries much more weight than all the posts from the wishful-thinkers.

      Reply

    • albert says:

      07:59pm | 24/08/10

      i was raised only by my mum, im just fine, thanks for wasting my time.

      Reply

    • Andrew says:

      11:34am | 06/09/10

      In order to produce a child, both a male and a female are required.  No child in history has ever been conceived as a result of one man sticking his penis in another man’s rectum or two women doing whatever it is they do.  For this reason and this reason alone, two homosexual men or two homosexual women should NEVER be allowed to adopt a child.

      This is about science.  This is about nature.  This is about logic.  And it’s about the fact that no child should be placed in the care of two homosexuals when they are oftentimes not old enough to know that it is not in their best interests.  This is child abuse - abuse of the child’s rights.

      What you homosexuals don’t understand is that what you want doesn’t matter.  What any adopting couple wants doesn’t matter.  What matters is what’s in the best interests of the child.

      I believe in Jesus Christ and I know that homosexual behaviour is gross sin.  If you do not have the courage to admit that your homosexual behaviour is wrong and repent of it, you WILL be rejected by God at the end of your life.  He is not going to care one bit about your hystrionic, empty protests.  What He wants from you is to admit the truth that you are pursuing a lifestyle that is against His will for you and which is spitting in His face.  What you refuse to acknowledge is that God made you and is wholly entitled to tell you how you should live your life.  As long as you refuse to accept this, you are doomed.

      Reply

    • Scott says:

      11:05pm | 24/11/10

      I myself a happy healthy 28 year old male was raised by 2 mothers.
      I must say I am disgusted by this & there is so many mentioned quote"issues” that you have not gone into it seems to me to be because it might suggest you are homophobic & I beleive anyone who would wright the trash article above would be. I NEVER felt unloved with my 2 mothers & I beleive we were much happier than many of the mother/farther family I knew growing up , I had a strong bond with both my mothers & they took great care to make sure I had strong positive male role models as a regular part of my life the main being my uncle whom I adored & still do, I am successful in ALL aspects of my life & as a child I never felt want for ANYTHING lest of all love,unlike MANY people I know I feel I had a wonderful childhood & concider myself very lucky, my mothers are still together unlike many of my friends raised by straight couples & to this day are a hudge part of my life. I won’t go on & on about this but I can say with 100% confidence that my 2 mothers provided my with everything a child could need & more & that I have never felt any shame,doubt or shame regarding the fact I had 2 mothers.
      That this post even exists in this day & age sickens me, love is love. The gay rights movment is NOT only focused on wants & it seems to be that it may be a suprise to many of you that everyday both gay male & gay female couples decide not to adopt but to have there own children for female couples they often do this by sperm donation from a male friend & many male couples are blessed enough to have a female friend willing to carry the child & adopt it to them at birth you may not like this but it happens EVERYDAY & is not going to stop, my point is gay couples CAN have children & the want to adopt is NOT selfish but a choice made knowing how many children are out there that need loving homes & a gay couple CAN provide everything a hild needs to be happy & healthy I am living proof of this & there are many many more like me.
      Scott

      Reply
 
Comment

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

ToryShepherd

ToryShepherd 04 Feb 12 05:55PM

Ugh. RT @Colvinius: Lord Monckton urging mining owners to buy up papers & TV stations for political influence http://t.co/xRUgErn5

ToryShepherd

ToryShepherd 04 Feb 12 04:32PM

@JohnHillMP it's a spectacular part of the world

ToryShepherd

ToryShepherd 04 Feb 12 04:31PM

RT @JohnHillMP: “@ToryShepherd: Star of Greece #happinesshttp://t.co/rPrvB4sL” Welcome to my electorate. #enjoy!

ToryShepherd

ToryShepherd 04 Feb 12 04:09PM

Star of Greece #happinesshttp://t.co/faYa2ZWq

See all tweets

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Gillard’s mapping a route but will probably still be routed

by Laurie Oakes

92

Gillard’s mapping a route but will probably still be routed

Julia Gillard and her advisers believe they can see a narrow path to victory for Labor at the next federal…

Kevin 2.0 could be better. Or it could be even KRuddier.

by Mark Kenny

64

Kevin 2.0 could be better. Or it could be even KRuddier.

As key moments go, it ranked with Gough Whitlam’s dramatic dismissal speech branding Malcolm Fraser…

Working women need to escape the grog bog

by Wendy Tuohy

25

Working women need to escape the grog bog

Can you hear a faint sort of teeth-grindy sound? No it’s not the rats in the roof gnawing the wires…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Other stuff to be angry about today (with video)

DOB says:

For the last 2 summers my local beach - which is a kid's beach really (but it has a nice cafe - thats my excuse) - has been overrun by jetskis. So when I go off for an idyllic morning of sun and sand I might as well just go down to an industrial plant and soak up the noise and fumes. My area is a bit… [read more]

From: Match of the century!

Pete says:

Since when has Australia been a land full of whinging, whiney and just plain annoying people. Seriously, we have to take a long hard look at ourselves and notice that we have it pretty damn good and that instead of whinging about every single article ever written we could perhaps be happy and enjoy things.… [read more]

Light weight

Gentle jabs to the ribs

No wuckin forries. These nuckin futs are tuckin fops

No wuckin forries. These nuckin futs are tuckin fops

Well, puck me with a fitchfork. The F-word is apparently an acceptable part of Australian speech. That’s… Read more

147 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter

Subscribe to The Punch RSS feed