Why should 'birth parents' have any say when they have given up a child? Why no discussion on the truly horrible prospect of a child being handed over to a pair of homosexuals?

For the very few people who give up their babies for adoption in Australia each year, I think it is a good idea to allow them to make some choices about where the baby goes to. At least they made a better decision than deciding to abort their unwanted baby.

If I were a relinquishing parent though, I would rather my baby went to a loving gay couple than to a nasty homophobic and/or racist couple for instance. People who have a blanket dislike or hatred of all gay people would make angry parents who teach their children hatred.

One stipulation I might make would be that I didn't want my child to go to a very religious family, as I would prefer my child to go to a less rigid, more open-minded family.
I wouldn't go to any 'faith-based' adoption agency in the first place...

Suseonline, "If I were a relinquishing parent though, I would rather my baby went to a loving gay couple than to a nasty homophobic and/or racist couple for instance"

You have already stated that there are very few children available for adoption and it follows that many ideal couples will wait in vain.

That is the situation faced by one of my contractors and his wife. They made the mistake of waiting a little too long to have a family (wanted to be established and a small business is hard to set up) and then poured their hearts and a small fortune into exhausting the medical means to have a child, but to no avail. A very stable couple who can offer the best for a child, but no go.

As well, many women (and men) have no option but to spend long years in education. Some professions are very demanding, requiring dedication and a monastic existence, no-one can afford the $$ and time for a social life. Coupling comes later and sometimes too late for the fertility promised and spruiked by overly optimistic 'experts' in the women's movement and the talking heads on The Box.

Your flawed false comparisons and special pleading for gays are devoid of consideration of what is best for the children and why you would have your subjective criteria dominate.

Yes ttbn

There is that danger they may adopt a little boy for the wrong end.

Chances they will encourage him to go out and meet girls when he's 12?

Oh of course OTB, it is the feminists fault for couples waiting too long to try for a family. They are the root of all evil in our society.
Lol!
Did your male employee not have a say in putting off the family then? Men never try to put off having a baby do they...

As I said, there are so few babies put up for adoption in this country, that the chance of any gay couple getting an adoptive child here is almost impossible. So these sort of homophobic rants from those raving about gay people not being allowed to adopt kids "because it isn't natural" always amuses me.

I would hate any child of mine to grow up in such a household full of bigots and homophobes. Hatred and intolerance is such a negative influence on a child.

I brought up my kids to be tolerant of others and to take each person as they are.
Those who bring their kids up to hate others because of their sexuality, race, religion (or no religion) or color should be charged with child abuse.

Yeah you're right Suse.

Male gay couples should only be allowed to adopt little girls.

The idiots who are not worth responding to think that they are going to stop others from speaking their minds by calling them homophobes, bigots and whatever names their limited vocabulary permits.

An open post to the idiots who would like to call me a homophobe and bigot - be my guest. It will not make a damn of difference to me, what I think, and what I post.

Pete,

What on earth are you talking about? "Wrong ends" - sounds like an attempt at a joke against homosexuals. Are you sure that your aren't a bigoted homophobe, too?

ttbn

Me make a "joke"? Never!

I think it was my mate Oscar Wilde who said:

"Be yourself; everyone else is already taken."

ttbn,

Unless you can provide a rational explanation as to why allowing homosexual couples to adopt children is a "truly horrible prospect", then I'm afraid you ARE just a homophobe.

"Australia desperately needs adoption reform. What we don't need is poorly-conceived adoption legislation, like the same sex adoption Bill recently introduced into the Victorian Parliament, which will result in future governments apologising to a generation of angry and grieving birth mothers and fathers."

No. It will not.

It will not for the same reason as there will be no need for a future apology for adoptions by families hated by other (ie, other than homophobes) bigots like islamaphobes and racists.

yes, I used the "B" word. Not unexpectedly, already there have been squawks about 'don't call people "bigots" just because they are saying what they think". Sorry. If you say racist things, you're a racist. If you talk rirrationally about your hatred of Muslims, you're an Islamaphobe. If you make baseless anti-LGB comments, you're a homophobe. And if you are any of these things, for no good reason, then you're a bigot. Freedom of speech is not freedom from criticism. So if the show fits ...

By the way, when will homophobes realise that same-sex couples are already a thing and stop dredging up family composition issues whenever matters of legal rights for same sex couples comes up?

This article left me a bit confused. Is the author concerned at faith-based adoption agencies losing the right to refuse to place children with same-sex couples, or the right of birth parents to have a say in the families where their children are adopted? She seems to be mixing the two, assuming that removing the adoption agencies’ exemption automatically diminishes birth parents’ influence on where their children are adopted. But this is not necessarily the case.

Just to give some idea of the numbers involved, there were four (4) local adoptions in WA in 2013-4.

None of the responders so far answered the real question:

"Who should have the most say regarding by whom a child is raised"?

The answer is, THE CHILD!

Once a child is grown enough to express their wish clearly and consistently, then it must be up to them to choose (among willing adopting parents) who is to raise them.

Prior to that, we should look at and learn the child's intentions from the child's earlier choices, and the most striking and obvious among them is the choice to be born to their particular birth-parents, to identify with the body which they produced.

(and for those who claim that the child did not choose, it's true that the body of the child did not choose, but if there's nothing more than a body there, then it doesn't matter anyway by whom and how that body is raised, nor whether it is raised at all)

That makes the birth-parents the most likely people to represent their child correctly, the most likely people through which the wishes of the child, though they cannot yet be spoken directly, can somehow be expressed.

Thus we are not discussing the "rights" of parents nor the "rights" of agencies, but rather the child's own freedom of choice. While the child is very young, the one and only possible avenue by which his/her choice can be expressed, must not be blocked by laws.

'Just to give some idea of the numbers involved, there were four (4) local adoptions in WA in 2013-4.

yep otb the baby killing industry would lose $$$ of taxpayer funded money if saving childrens life became a priority. Hopefully they don't sell the body parts here like they have been doing in the US. Sick that we should even have this conversation. And we call Islam uncivlised!

I partially agree with Yuyutsu.

"That makes the birth-parents the most likely people to represent their child correctly, the most likely people through which the wishes of the child, though they cannot yet be spoken directly, can somehow be expressed."

One only has to look at the baby Gammy case:

THE Thai surrogate mother left with abandoned baby Gammy said she will raise him, after his Australian parents discovered he had Down’s syndrome.

“I’ll take care of Gammy on my own. I’ll not give my baby to anybody,” Pattharamon Janbua said from a hospital where Gammy is being treated for a lung infection, Fairfax Media reports.

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/parenting/k-raised-for-abandoned-baby-with-down-syndrome-born-to-thai-surrogate/story-fnet08ck-1227009760126

Basic principles should apply with adoption, and not have something forced onto either parents or children by an outside agency or government, with some type of political or politically correct driven line behind it.

At any stage, parents will need to make an informed decision. The above mentioned case shows how strong some parents can be.

We must however on the other hand be clear and see balance. A recent television survey saw around 75% of people (in Australia) supporting sex selection of children as acceptable (and be legalised here). Personally I believe a lot of these people would have been parents or either to be parents.

Existing or to be parents (can be very biased) and see children as "theirs" or a "right". There should be protection for children of a basic nature - not like simply an item a person can buy off a supermarket shelf.

A child's life is a very serious issue, particularly as they grow and emerge into a future.

runner,

The public would be hoping that after the first spike in abortions and the noticeable reduction in children available for adoption, that the rate of abortion might have plateaued.

That is, that the further reductions in children available for adoption might at least in part be attributable to a reduction in the stigma of having and raising children outside of marriage.

However, is not likely that there would be much in the way of guvvy grants available to research who has abortions in Australia and why, and who are more likely to have their child adopted and why.

Some observations on adoption (from elsewhere), that may provoke some discussion,

http://statistics.adoption.com/information/adoption-statistics-placing-children.html

AJ,

My open post was addressed to idiots. What does your response to that post make you?

As a conservative, I am used to the bullying and name-calling of the Left. If you wish to deem me a 'homophobe' so be it. As I said, it as no effect on me and my principles.

It says nothing about me whatsoever, ttbn.

<<My open post was addressed to idiots. What does your response to that post make you?>>

Unless, as I said before, you can rationally justify your original remark. Which apparently you can't. So there has been no "bullying" or "name-calling" on this thread yet.

<<If you wish to deem me a 'homophobe' so be it.>>

You yourself demonstrated that you're a homophobe. I simply pointed it out. Apparently I was right.

ttbn, absolutely, 100% correct, the settled science clearly shows that ALL children raised in non traditional families are damaged by it. A few decades from now our PM will be apologising to children damaged by same sex adoption.

Suseonline, i don't hate GLBT people, have many gay friends, who also do NOT want either gay marriage or adoption of children. Where does your heterophobia, misandry, sexism & christophobia come from? Did you have any male children? if so i pity them.

onthebeach, absolutely, 100% correct, lesbians & femi-NAZIS make terrible mothers of children. their hatred of children is why they pushed young women into careers instead of families.

plantagenet, absolutely, 100% correct, people who mentor a life of promiscuity to their children will manufacture dysfunctional children.

Suseonline, so you filled the heads your young goats with good old fashioned communist guilt & self hatred?

plantagenet, i bet she likes that idea.

ttbn, absolutely, 100% correct, again.

plantagenet, "Be yourself; everyone else is already taken." is fine until you bring a child into your life, then the welfare of the child trumps your right to neglect or abuse the child whether biological or adopted.

AJ Philips, already been scientifically proven as you well know.

wearestardust, but the settled science is already here to prove that children raised in non traditional families are damaged by it.

http://www.henrymakow.com/2_moms.html

Rhian, i thought women were supposed to be smarter than men? are you suggesting that you don't understand the article when the male commenters do?

onthebeach, sounds about right, you get better stats on female infanticide in WA too.

Yuyutsu, children have the right to be raised by both biological parents or the biological father if the mother is a dead beat. That almost always gives the best results.

runner, absolutely, 100% correct, but it is extremely likely that body parts are being used here, people without a positive religion have lower morals, ethics & principles, the antisocialists are capable of anything. Or "whatever it takes".

NathanJ, absolutely, 100% correct,

onthebeach, absolutely, 100% correct, again.

ttbn, absolutely, 100% correct, again, but call it what it is bigotry, heterophobia, sexism, misandry, conservophobia, christophobia by GLBT chauvinist pigs.

AJ Philips, http://www.henrymakow.com/2_moms.html

AJ,

I feel no obligation to to "justify (my) original remark" to you, someone who has already made up his mind about what I am. As I said, you are welcome to think of me as a 'homophobe' in defence of your own opinions. I fully appreciate that your tactics are part of your Leftist brainwashing, and I accept that your thinking will not change. I also accept your 'no bullying here' comment because that is also part of your conditioning. You are not, yet, on my 'idiot' list, and I am prepared to respond to you, remembering the 3 posts rule.

imacentristmoderate,

Thank you for your support and refusal to be cowed by the Leftist bullies. All Leftists are bullies; it's the way they operate.

Pete,
So, I made a mistake thinking that you might have a sense of humour: so, let's keep it serious, and be ourselves as per the entertaining and clever old poof, Oscar Wilde.

And indeed you have no obligation to, ttbn.

<<I feel no obligation to to "justify (my) original remark" to you…>>

The problem is not what you won’t justify, but what you can’t. Why, you could send me packing right now, toddling off with my tail between my legs, by simply justifying your claim. Instead, you choose the ad hominem route with assumptions about why I say what I have said.

Iamsuchacharacatureofaconservativethatiampossiblyjusthavingeveryoneon,

I’m sorry, but the science on this matter is not settled. I’ve covered this many times before on OLO. In fact, the science is heavily weighted towards the conclusion that children of same-sex couples fare just as well, if not better, than children of opposite-sex couples.

Here’s some scholarly works on the matter:

http://dime159.dizinc.com/~uv1258/blog/Matrimonio/archivos/wainright_2004.pdf
http://people.virginia.edu/~cjp/articles/wp06.pdf
http://66.7.216.77/~uv1258/blog/Matrimonio/archivos/wainright_2008.pdf
http://www.ionainstitute.eu/pdfs/1-s2.0-S0049089X12000610-main.pdf
http://squareonemd.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Same-Sex-Parenting-Meta-Analysis-Crowl-Ahn-Baker-2008.pdf

If you get through that, let me know and I’ll point you to some more. They’re a lot more reliable than the sample size of one that you provided us with in your link to the quack who blames the illuminati and offers no evidence for his claims.

ttbn, no worries mate, i was a Democrat, snag when younger & sillier. So took it rather personally when the femi-NAZI leftists blamed me for everything wrong in the world & will never back down when it comes to protecting children from corporate pedophilia.

AJ Philips, the link i provided is from a PHD Humanities academic as in Dr of.

Q, are you suggesting that humanities academics are UN-reliable?

i believe almost all academics lie 24/7/365 so i won't bother reading one word of your "scholarly works" & would not poison my body by wiping my arse on them.

i don't hate GLBT people, have many gay friends, who also do NOT want either gay marriage or adoption of children.

Imacentristmoderate, what a particularly nasty piece of work you are. I wouldn't lower my standards to reply to any of your awful statements.
No wonder you enjoy the company of your equally charming comrades Runner, OTB and ttbn.

With the terrible mental health problems of several adoptees I know, I am sure that the decisions of women these days to opt for abortion rather than adoption is often a better choice.
We should be working towards preventing unwanted pregnancies in the first place, rather than going back to the good 'ol days of forcing women to go through pregnancy, labour and adoption against their will.

Contraception or abstinence are 2 good methods.
Another way to lessen the numbers of 'accidental' pregnancies is to ensure any unwanted babies are born and given straight to the daddies to raise alone.

Iamarightwingextremist,

That’s the Argument from Authority fallacy…

<<The link i provided is from a PHD Humanities academic as in Dr of.>>

So your point is invalid.

Evidence is what matters, not authorities.

<<Q, are you suggesting that humanities academics are UN-reliable?>>

No.

I am suggesting, however, that someone who provides no references or evidence for their claims is unreliable. Especially when they start getting into conspiracies surrounding the Illuminati.

<<i believe almost all academics lie 24/7/365 so i won't bother reading one word of your "scholarly works" & would not poison my body by wiping my arse on them.>>

When you resort to conspiratorial thinking such as that, then you’ve already lost the argument, and it should come as no surprise to anyone that you refuse to look at the peer-reviewed evidence that they provide. Clearly you are only interested in reading that which you already agree with.

<<i don't hate GLBT people, have many gay friends, who also do NOT want either gay marriage or adoption of children.>>

Yes. Yes, I‘m sure you do. So does damn near every other conservative on OLO. Allegedly.

Oh, and right back atcha' too.

ttbn,

I don’t think I was as clear as I could have been in my last post. I’ll go through this step by step for you:

You initially said, “Why no discussion on the truly horrible prospect of a child being handed over to a pair of homosexuals?”

You later said, “The idiots ... think that they are going to stop others from speaking their minds by calling them homophobes, bigots and whatever names their limited vocabulary permits”, suggesting that the labelling of a person as a “homophobe” was invalid and merely reflective of the accuser.

So I pointed out that in order demonstrate the validity of that claim, you would need to demonstrate the validity of your original claim to show that it has merit and that you are not just some bigot.

Playing the ‘wounded dear’ card, you refuse to (presumably because you can’t), then turn the focus onto myself in order to distract from the fact.

@AJ Philips, Thursday, 29 October 2015 8:14:58 PM

You are careful not to mention the restrictions on the findings and conclusions those studies to which you linked.

Just taking one of a number of restrictions from your first link, self-reporting,

"The study involved the use of data
collected from both adolescents and their parents,
but no observational data were available. Thus, we
had no observational assessments of adolescents’
actual interactions with parents, peers, or teachers,
but relied instead on adolescents’ and parents’ reports
about their interactions and relationships."

Usually goes with self-selecting and other restrictions in these 'proofs' that are not proofs of anything. At the best they are just possibilities, among others for research. For real research that is, and peer reviewed in a journal of substance one hopes)

Suseonline, so you have no answer & am admitting i am right then? your last sentence is the perfect solution however, since it has been proven already that biological fathers are better at parenting than women. thank you darling for your honesty which is so unusual of most women. you should have more faith in yourself. BTW, humans have children dear, goats have kids. it was all part of communist feminist, stupidity training.

AJ Philips, your sophistry debating tactics will get you nowhere with me. GLBT commandment, "repeat the big lie, until it becomes the truth" Lenin. Christian commandment, "you shall not lie".

http://henrymakow.com/2014/12/mom-takes-on-lesbian.html

It boils down to rewarding perversion at the cost children.

Runner "It boils down to rewarding perversion at the cost children"

Yes indeed, like the Catholic Church rewarding their paedophile priests by moving them to yet another parish so they get a new selection of young victims you mean?

As I know several lesbian couples with children, I can vouch for them being superb parents (a job I personally take seriously)

However, my objection to the Victorian laws is on a far more fundamental level. I see big brother coming in and overriding the last wishes of the mother and the organisation to which she has entrusted her child for purely political reasons.

Given that about 200 children are given up for adoption in Aus compared the tens of thousands that would love to adopt there must be suitable parents that fit just about any criteria, and I cannot see why the reasonable wishes of the mother cannot be accommodated, and why her rights are stripped.

imacentristmoderate, "i don't hate GLBT people, have many gay friends, who also do NOT want either gay marriage or adoption of children."

I'll call you out, you are lying when you say that.

Runner you consistently show your hate for the rest of us not related to Fred Phelps by any chance?

Wearestardust:

“And if you are any of these things, for no good reason, then you're a bigot. Freedom of speech is not freedom from criticism. So if the show fits ...”

That is if you can call it criticism. It is not criticism but an attempt to deride a person, to put them down to cast a slur upon them and ostracize them. By your criteria one disagreement about one point of view held by homosexuals and their supporters makes them homophobic. That person may agree with ninety-nine per cent of homosexuals’ analysis of their own behaviour but you label them homophobes on the basis of one per cent. A person may have one view about other races that you disagree with and you label them racist while they may have spent their entire life working for the race that they have one disagreement with. You simply cannot make such judgements based on a few opinions expressed in this forum.

Most telling of all there is simply no need to do it. What does it add to any discussion about any topic? If you disagree with someone then present your argument in response. Calling them names is a last resort. You call people names because you want to hurt them and you only want to hurt them if you are insecure in your own views.

It is not criticism when you aim to hurt. The only thing you need to be critical about is their argument anything else is about your need to try and hurt others.

Don't hide behind the word criticism.

AJ,


I believe that same-sex couples should not be able to adopt because a child should have a mother and a father; anything less is unnatural. Anything else is against natural law, and no scientfic blah will change that. That belief is inherent in me, but being the grandfather of three children, all with different fathers, who have spent most of their lives with the influence of their mother only, I have real-life proof.

My basis for thinking in no way discriminates against same sex 'parents'.

However, I must say that homosexuality gives me the creeps. But, what other people do is not my business; I rarely think about it; they don't hurt me etc. etc. But, when children are involved, when homosexuality and its problems are thrust in my face, I react in a way that is natural for me. And, the idea of two people of he same sex having children I think of in the same way as I do of my own daughter, with her lack of thought and pure self-indulgence and selfishness in regard to my grandchildren who could have much better lives than they do.

'Yes indeed, like the Catholic Church rewarding their paedophile priests by moving them to yet another parish so they get a new selection of young victims you mean?'

Yeah Susie by and large the priests practicing homosexuality, a fact you obviously ignore.

Phanto, I did not say that simply being opposed to homosexuality, ipso facto, makes one a bigot.

I was at pains not to say that.

You've even quoted me, being at pains not to say that.

Rational discussion on these topics is going to continue to be impossible while those who want to limit the participation of LGB people in society insist on not engaging in meaningful, honest, good-faith discussion. The focus on family composition where it is not relevant of one example of this tendency. Not reading what I said, even while quoting it, is another.

onthebeach,

There are weaknesses in every social science study and data-gathering method. But so what?

The studies I cited certainly beat Iamajoke’s “evidence” (which you conveniently overlooked the sheer lunacy of).

If you think you’re going to invalidate a study because it has a weakness, then you have a lot to learn. All studies have their weaknesses, which is why they need to be taken cumulatively.

Iamarightwingextremist,

<<...your sophistry debating tactics will get you nowhere with me.>>

Could you give me a specific example of what you are referring to here? Do you even understand what “sophistry” means? It doesn’t appear that you do.

<<GLBT commandment, "repeat the big lie, until it becomes the truth" Lenin.>>

No, that’s actually something Goebbels said (a member of a predominantly right-wing party). And even if it were Lenin, it would still not tie it to homosexuality in any way.

<<Christian commandment, "you shall not lie".>>

Here’s another wonderful cherry-picked Christian passage: "Happy is the one who takes your babies and smashes them against the rocks!" (Psalm 137:9)

By the way, you still haven’t demonstrated that the science is “settled”. And how could you know if you refuse to read any of it?

ttbn,

So basically what you’re saying is that your reaction was an emotive reaction, and not a rational one. I figured that.

<<I believe that same-sex couples should not be able to adopt because a child should have a mother and a father; anything less is unnatural. Anything else is against natural law...>>

This is the Appeal to Nature fallacy, and is therefore invalid.

The fact that you are a parent and grandparent is proof of nothing unless you have observed your children and grandchildren living different lives with numerous different same-sex and opposite-sex couples.

<<...and no scientfic blah will change that.>>

Far from being “blah”, hundreds of studies have been done on this and they all point to the same conclusion: that only the quality of parenting matters, not the sexes of the parents. The fact that that doesn’t fit with your ignorant worldview does not render it mere “blah”.

//I believe that same-sex couples should not be able to adopt because a child should have a mother and a father; anything less is unnatural. Anything else is against natural law, and no scientfic blah will change that.//

A brief thought experiment: take the fictional time machine of your choice (I prefer a flying DeLorean or a 1960's English police box), go back just a few short centuries to a time when medicine was somewhat less advanced than it is these days, run that idea up the flagpole and see if it will fly.

Childbirth is risky. Do you have any idea how many women it killed before we developed better medicine? It wasn't at all uncommon for children to grow up without their mothers, because their mothers weren't alive to care for them.

These days we have much better medical science. Women don't die from childbirth. But we do have a different social and legal attitude to divorce, so children are often raised by single parents. The pendulum does seem to have swung the other way, insofar as instead of the father providing for all his offspring regardless of their mother, it is now considered a mothers job to provide for their offspring regardless of their fatherhood.

I'm not sure that it matters. It's too late and I'm too tired to be looking up examples, but I'm sure that a few of the Isaac Newtons, Lord Nelsons, J.S. Mills etc. never got the chance to know their real mum and didn't suffer the worse for it. My late granddad was raised single-handedly by his mother; he fathered seven (7) children and twice as many grandchildren. And he didn't start till he was forty (40). Not a bad effort. We miss you granddad.

I think what really matters is having a parent - even if it is just the one - who cares. Because I've seen the result of children being raised by their biological Mum and Dad when neither cared more about their children than their own concerns, and the result is neglect.

Deleted for abuse.

Deleted for allowing self to be provoked by previous post.

AJ,

So emotions, beliefs, nature and being human count as nothing against science and "studies", right? And, you know more about my relationship with my family than I do; anything I say is "invalid".

The trouble with being like you - an emotionless robot, controlled by science and 'studies' -
is your lack of ability to discern the difference between real science and junk. Just because some tool puts 'studies' up on the internet, you take them as gospel. You would have made a good disciple of Kinsey, who came up with his sexual guff trying to legitamise his own madness and perversions. Well, each to his own, I suppose. And, I must thank you for increasing my self-esteem. The more I read the ravings of the weirdos and Lefties on OLO, the better and happier I feel about my own humanity, sanity and wayyof seeing things

A J Phillips, "There are weaknesses in every social science study and data-gathering method. But so what?...All studies have their weaknesses, which is why they need to be taken cumulatively"

What a load of bollocks. Garbage in, garbage out, as the IT professionals say.

What you are trying to do is pull the wool over the eyes of a public that trusts scientific research and mislead readers into believing that findings that are so fatally compromised by such severe restrictions as self-reporting are 'proving' what you infer. That is unethical.

If you and other activists had a shred of principle - which you obviously don't - you would not seek to mislead. You would be divulging the truth up front, that the conclusions you infer and prefer to be taken as fact are NOT supported at all by the 'studies'. What you hope is that the feckless tabloid pick up your slanted and unsupportable pitch and report it as fact, which regrettably some do.

Then you have the hide to swamp readers with links and posts, bullying as you do, pretending that there is a weight of evidence, which there isn't. You hope that people will not be bothered reading further to see for themselves.

'Really, runner? Do you have any evidence to support your far-fetched claim, or do you just feel it in your waters?

I rather suspect that no priest has to practise homosexuality, you're either a natural at it or you aren't. Who knows, maybe they do make them practise at seminary college... that might explain a thing or two about Tony Abbott ;)'

since whyen did you get interested in evidence Toni. Evidence will never fit your grubby narrative.

Not quite, ttbn.

<<So emotions, beliefs, nature and being human count as nothing against science and "studies", right?>>

Subjective experiences are just not as reliable as empirical data.

<<And, you know more about my relationship with my family than I do; anything I say is "invalid".>>

No to both of those. I have said nothing that should have suggested that that is what I think. All I said is that your experience is unreliable because you have a sample size of one (i.e. one family). Does a dysfunctional heterosexual family disprove your “evidence”? Did your family fare worse when they were raised by homosexual couples? How do you know they wouldn’t have done better?

<<Just because some tool puts 'studies' up on the internet, you take them as gospel.>>

No, I’m actually somewhat qualified in this area, which is why I know it’s not junk science, and why you and onthebeach aren’t faring too well here. You just assume that whatever disagrees with your ignorant worldview must be junk science. You have absolutely no evidence whatsoever for your claim.

<<...I must thank you for increasing my self-esteem.>>

Yes, I raise it so much that you need to start twisting my words and throw up a bunch of unsupported assertions just to generate a response. You’re kidding no-one other than yourself, ttbn.

onthebeach,

No bollocks at all. For the GIGO rule to be a valid criticism here, self-reported data would have to be completely useless. Instead, it simply has its weaknesses like any other data-gathering method. Such weaknesses are usually noted in studies as the essay’s “limitations”. Researchers also go to great lengths to minimise the impact of weaknesses in data-gathering methods such as formulating their questions carefully so as to not unduly influence responses.

As I alluded to earlier, you clearly know nothing about any of this, resorting instead to ad hominems and conspiracy in lieu of any real knowledge. You guys can continued to find excuses to ignore the facts when they contradict your ignorant worldviews all you like. Good luck in learning anything new that way.

AJ Philips,

Usually it is the uses that you and other activists make of studies and especially your unethical refusal to declare the limitations up-front that is the problem.

You have more front than a tourist bus to claim as you have done that the 'cumulative results', the conclusions, that YOU and GAY ACTIVISTS and feckless tabloids take from 'research/studies' are in fact supported by the evidence which they are NOT.

However, apart from that, junk science and even fraudulent 'scientific' research, is a growth industry and government research funding to appease noisy lobbyists, and the prevalence of 'user-pays' and fund raising requirements for universities contribute.

“Refusal” eh, onthebeach?

<<Usually it is the uses that you and other activists make of studies and especially your unethical refusal to declare the limitations up-front that is the problem.>>

On the contrary limitations are discussed continuously - whether in their own studies or in the studies of others. For example, limitations were discussed in every one of the studies I linked to. Academics love proving each other wrong too. It helps them to earn a name.

This idea that academia is one big secretive, plotting brotherhood in which no-one blows the whistle or manages to let anything slip is the stuff of conspiracy theorists and not worthy of any serious consideration. Neither, too, is the creationist-esque claim surrounding lack of funding. There are plenty of wealthy churches that would be willing to fund anti-gay research. James Dobson has some repetitively debunked papers that I think you’d like.

<<You have more front than a tourist bus to claim as you have done that the 'cumulative results', the conclusions, that YOU and GAY ACTIVISTS and feckless tabloids take from 'research/studies' are in fact supported by the evidence which they are NOT.>>

So what is this evidence that the research is apparently not supportive of? They would want to be pretty convincing given that the vast majority of studies conclude that same-sex parenting is no worse than opposite-sex parenting. Could you provide me with some links? Simply contradicting me isn’t an argument.

A J Philips,

There is peer review and there is peer review, just as there are journals that will accept practically anything.

You have added nothing of worth, just fallacious Strawmen and more narrative.

AJPhillips "This idea that academia is one big secretive, plotting brotherhood in which no-one blows the whistle or manages to let anything slip is the stuff of conspiracy theorists and not worthy of any serious consideration."

Not at all AJPhillips, Onthebeach believes it is the 'sisterhood' who control the academia and plot continuously to undermine all men, family courts, police, governments, religion....and anything else that he believes to be true.

I see he still wasn't able to provide any credible, peer reviewed, recent research papers that show his unproved personal views that gay people make worse parents than heterosexual parents?
OTB, you may need to go read the Catholic newspaper to find what you want to see...

Ah yes, suseonline. I forgot that it was about the sisterhood. I forgot because I usually stop reading someone’s post as soon as I see the words “feminist”, “fabian” or “socialist”; for the same reason I choose not to use words such as “Nazi” or “fascist” when I criticise a conservative point of view. They’re emotive, unhelpful, and are merely the mark of an extremist with no argument.

onthebeach,

If you’re not going to provide the supposedly “real” evidence on this topic that contradicts the evidence I’ve provided, then I’m done with our interaction on this thread. The one thing I cannot stand is wasting precious posts and time on someone who cannot support their claims.

So far, all you, ttbn, and IamaleftietrollingOLOwithclevercharacaturesofconservatives have provided as a litmus test for whether or not a science is a real science or not, is whether or not you agree with it.

Hardly scholarly.

Provide me with evidence that is scholarly and not from an interest group such as the Templeton Foundation or James Dobson’s gay-hate-and-anti-abortion-group-disguised-as-a-family-oriented-group such as his Focus on the Family, and I’ll take what you say seriously. But until then, I can only place you in the same batshit crazy category that lunes like ttbn and runner belong to.

ttbn writes my desire for evidence off as “robotic” of me, but I am proud that I have managed to separate emotions from facts. I was once an anti-feminist, homophobic, creationist Christian before I started exploring reality. Now I’m in a position to be in on, or at least know about, any secret brother- or sisterhood that would exist had they actually existed.

Who knows, maybe you’ll get lucky and there’ll be a Gay-parenting-gate where a thousand emails will be hacked and you can pick out two single lines that sound suspicious when taken out of context.

You conservatives are utterly pathetic. But given the fact that you need to defend the status quo in the moral shifting zeitgeist of a world that is becoming increasingly educated and moral, is it any wonder?

AJ Philips,

Nice switch, trying to put the onus of proof onto me.

However it is you who has been caught out claiming conclusions that were NOT able to be made because of the restrictions inherent to the design and conduct of the 'studies' you linked to.

Then you went on to claim that unsupportable conclusions, those that could NOT be drawn because of restrictions, were somehow improved in value to become 'proved' where there was enough of them. That is nonsense, it would be more garbage in and more garbage out.

Sorry, ontthebeach. But there has been no switching of the burden of proof fallacy on my behalf (http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Shifting_the_burden_of_proof)

<<Nice switch, trying to put the onus of proof onto me.>>

Burden of proof for what , by the way?

<<However it is you who has been caught out claiming conclusions that were NOT able to be made because of the restrictions inherent to the design and conduct of the 'studies' you linked to.>>

Bzzzzt! You haven't been able to demonstrate this yet. You've merely asserted it. Please give a specific example or walk away with your tail between your legs as you usually do.

Provide me with just one fatal weakness in any of the studies I’ve cited and I’ll walk away now with my tail between my legs.

Can’t do it?

Didn’t think so. You conservatives are such a pack of losers.

<<Then you went on to claim that unsupportable conclusions…> >

Such as..? Oh, we don’t know, do we?

<<...those that could NOT be drawn because of restrictions>>

What restrictions? You’re just making this up as go go now.

<<...were somehow improved in value to become 'proved' where there was enough of them.>>

Not enough of what? You’ve just resorted to gibberish now because you have nothing left.

<<That is nonsense, it would be more garbage in and more garbage out.>>

What is nonsense? You don’t even know anymore, do you? You’ve just restored to prattling crap now because you have nothing left. Good luck with that. I already debunked your GIGO approach earlier. Yes, onthebeach, I used to work in the IT industry and probably understand GIGO better than you do.

runner, correct as usual.

Suseonline, What about left wing & feminist paedophiles being protected at a higher % rate than christian paedophiles?

Shadow Minister, 1, the exception does not prove the rule

http://www.henrymakow.com/2_moms.html

http://henrymakow.com/2014/12/mom-takes-on-lesbian.html

http://henrymakow.com/2015/02/the-first-child-kathleen-wynne.html

i have another 173,000,000 links to choose from

2, quite correct.

Cobber the hound, 1, have you ever been involved in the Men's Movement? been to a Men's Group or weekend retreat from the matriarchy? i can assure you that both straight AND gay men are involved & despite their "gaydar" they will flirt with you, knowing they are safe to do so.

2, runner said nothing hateful, just factual. GLBT lifestyle is abnormal, (as in 2 or 3% at best) period, acknowledging that fact is not proof of hatred.

phanto, very well said, if only Graham Young's blog had thumbs up & down buttons, we would not need to type a response every time.

ttbn, same here, i have seen many children including my own, neglected & abused by their own mothers who just were not thinking about any one, other than themselves. Have not even seen my grand children but if past performance is any guide then despite my son's best efforts they will have been hurt by the women around them. feminism = dead beat mother training. seeing children 4 & 6 years old with PTSD is not fun.

runner, have you seen any lesbian & secular abuse of children covered up? i have.

wearestardust, Rational discussion on these topics is going to continue to be impossible while those who want to limit the participation of straight people in society insist on not engaging in meaningful, honest, good-faith discussion. The refusal focus on family composition where it is relevant to child safety is one example of this tendency. Not reading what I said, even while quoting it, is another.

A J Philips, There are weaknesses in every social science study and data-gathering method. Exactly, leftists have been proven to be rigging them for half a century?

All studies have their weaknesses, which is why they need to be taken cumulatively, 173,000,000 times.

A J Philips, again, half truth or sophistry in action:- Goebbels did say it too, he also learned it from Lenin along with ALL the other senior national socialists who studied propaganda with the international socialists in Moscow.

"Deception Was My Job" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3qkf3bajd4

23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. "Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art."

24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press.

25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.

26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Naked_Communist

Here’s another wonderful cherry-picked Communist passage: "Happy is the one who takes your babies and smashes them against the rocks!" (Psalm 137:9) the bible is full of examples of what NOT to do.

By the way, i have demonstrated that the science is “settled” 173,000,000 times. And how could you know if you refuse to read any of it? & only reply with sarcasm instead of facts.

More sophistry against ttbn this time. So as an atheist you will claim that "natural law" or science trumps cannon law one day, then say that natural law is useless the next day when it does not back your communist theories. How stupid do you think we are?

Toni Lavis, thank you for proving that biological fathers are better at parenting than mothers are. Now we can change the anti family law courts to protect children by awarding custody to fathers in all cases.

Neglect is neglect & you DO need to look at real stats to see children are almost always better off with a traditional family. Which BTW you are completely ignoring the fact that in the past there was almost no such thing as a single parent because they were part of an extended family who SUPPORTED them. They also usually remarried yet another widow. when will leftists stop lying?

AJ,

I have to assume that you are still in your teens, given the nonsense you talk, and your obvious belief that you can talk anyone into believing such garbage. One of these days you will look back with embarrassment at what you have been chuntering on with. Never mind: it's all part of growing up.

Iamarightwingnutjob,

I can't decide if you're thoroughly delusional or just a Lefie troll having us all on. You say the say the same things I reckon I would if I were to create a fake account for the sake of trolling OLO. Especially with this doozy...

<<i have demonstrated that the science is “settled” 173,000,000 times.>>

WTF?!

But since there are people out there who do actually think like you, I'll treat you as if you were serious for now.

That aside, atheism and communism are not synonymous with each other and you just make a fool of yourself carrying on as if they were. You'd also need to demonstrate the existence and the rationality of your god to justify your claim with regards to cannon law vs natural law (whatever that claim meant).

Still waiting for an explanation as to how anything that I've said constitutes sophistry, too.

ttbn,

Far from it.

<<I have to assume that you are still in your teens...>>

I am old enough to have children in their teens, but I had kids late, so...

Far from being content with committing one logical fallacy, you have to add to that with the ad hominem fallacy because you have nothing left. Nothing but an ignorant, fallacious and out-of-date belief.

Pathetic.

<<...and your obvious belief that you can talk anyone into believing such garbage.>>

Why is that obvious? I debunk rubbish not for the benefit of the ignoramus I'm speaking to but for the fence-sitting onlooker that may be reading. OLO has hundreds of thousands of readers

Ima "Suseonline, What about left wing & feminist paedophiles being protected at a higher % rate than christian paedophiles?"

Wow, I AM impressed!

You found credible statistics to say that paedophiles who vote labor, and paedophiles who are also feminists (hell, there must be ...dozens of these), are somehow being 'protected' by....paedophile enablers?

And all at a 'higher % rate'? Of what? Money? Jail time?
WTF?

What has paedophilia got to do with same-sex adoption?
It's not as though anyone is going to let 2 priests adopt children is it?
Are you Runner's bestie then?

Dear Suse,

<<It's not as though anyone is going to let 2 priests adopt children is it?>>

I would - am I no-one?

This concept as if someone can not-let others do whatever they do is sickening. How else would you not-let them adopt except by using violence against them? The only situation where I would justify such violence is if they were to grab and adopt YOUR child without your consent - but is this the case?

What if it was the child of the sister of one of those priests who was dying of cancer?

Iamaleftwingnutjob,

I can't decide if you're thoroughly delusional or just a rightie troll having us all on. You say the same things I reckon I would if I were to create a fake account for the sake of trolling OLO. Especially with this doozy...

i have demonstrated that the science is “settled” 173,000,000 times by doing a Google search on the subject & sharing several of the links with you already

WTF?! here is another one for you & another one for every time you continue these lies of yours

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/cdc-study-traditional-two-parent-biological-family-the-safest-environment-f

But since there are people out there who do actually think like you, I'll treat you as if you were serious for now.

That aside, atheism and communism are absolutely synonymous with each other and you just make a fool of yourself carrying on as if they were not.

23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. "Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art."

24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press.

25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.

26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy."

27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity, which does not need a "religious crutch."

28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of "separation of church and state."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Naked_Communist

You'd also need to demonstrate that your radical, extreme, left wing religious cult is not a cult. i never made ANY claims about cannon law vs natural law (you did, i called you on your sophistry).

Still waiting for you to admit your sophistry & spin too.

"Suseonline, What about left wing & feminist paedophiles being protected at a higher % rate than christian paedophiles?"

Wow, I AM still waiting for an actual answer! HINT, there are both christian AND secular organisations out there & which have the higher rates of kiddy fiddling?

i found credible examples to prove that paedophiles who vote labor, and paedophiles who are also feminists (hell, there must be ...millions of these), are somehow being 'protected' by....paedophile enablers?

And all at a 'higher % rate'? Of crime? Tax Payers Money? & no Jail time?

WTF?

What has paedophilia got to do with same-sex adoption? A, the same as feminism, it is corporate paedophilia, in that it promotes the neglect & abuse of children, as you well know.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/cdc-study-traditional-two-parent-biological-family-the-safest-environment-f

It's not as though anyone is going to let 2 priests adopt children is it? A, well i wouldn't, why would you want to? Are you Satan's bestie then?

AJ,

"ad hominem", when you call me 'ignorant' and an 'ignoramus'. That's a typical 'defence' for the Left: when you can't brow-beat your opponents into silence, out comes the good old standby of personal attack, your favorites being 'homophobe', 'Islamophobe', 'racist', 'denier' or whatever tired old descriptions you think should work. You might as well just say"shut up" to cover the lot.

You might not be a teenager, but you certainly carry on like one here. You haven't got past school-yard bully standard yet.

Imacentristmoderate,

Don't waste your time waiting for any rational responses from her, mate. I don't even glance at her ratbaggery any more. Since the loss of the other one, Foxy, she has gone to the top of my idiot list.

Iameitheralefietrollingoruttlerydelusional,

When you can keep up with a discussion and not resort to conspiracy, I’ll take you a bit more seriously.

<<You'd also need to demonstrate that your radical, extreme, left wing religious cult is not a cult.>>

Why would I need to? The burden of proof still lies with you. A cult is a small, unpopular religion; just as a religion is a large, popular cult.

ttbn,

I have not committed the ad hominem fallacy. An ad hominem is the use of personal attacks to redirect the focus of a discussion to the person instead of their arguments. This is what you’re doing. I, on the other hand, have demonstrated that your comments have been incorrect and then pointed out the obvious conclusion that they’re ignorant. That’s not an ad hominem.

<<...your favorites being 'homophobe', 'Islamophobe', 'racist', 'denier' or whatever tired old descriptions you think should work.>>

I don’t think I’ve ever called anyone on OLO an 'Islamophobe'. The only person I’ve called a racist here is someone who admits the fact and wears the label as a badge of pride. And I have only ever called someone a ‘homophobe’ and ‘denier’ when I could demonstrate the fact.

You’re just resorting to slander now.

Speaking of which, discrediting your arguments and calling them out for what they are is not bullying. You have revealed nothing about me and have only done yourself a disservice by resorting to personal attacks. I’m sorry that your logic and reasoning flopped, but that says nothing about me. Your response to the fact does, however, reflect on badly on you.

Suseonline,

You are the forum's oft-acknowledged No1 expert on gays and tireless spruiker for all things gay, particularly anal sex(!), having introduced the subject to threads where it was not even imagined to be relevant.

You have said that your passionate obsession with gays stems from when you and other women in your family recognised from birth the gay sexuality of a boy relative, and ensured that he was groomed accordingly.

You have always sidestepped and steered away from the subject of lesbanism though, declaring your 'married' status, while constantly damning and warring against men.

Heh, heh, you are the strange one.

Anyhow, the adoption example you were looking for earlier is given below, but they are gay not religious. Here you go and it is odd that you forgot, the case being well publicised.

<Australian pair in L.A. convicted for making child porn with ‘adopted son’ from Russia

An Australian couple is accused of making hardcore child porn with their "adopted son" for an international porn syndicate known as the Boy Lovers network.

On Friday, Mark J. Newton, 42, was sentenced to 40 years in prison and was ordered to pay $400,000 in restitution to the child. His boyfriend, Peter Truong, 36, pleaded guilty and is awaiting sentencing.

The couple bought the child from his Russian mother for $8,000 in 2005.

Investigators say Newton and Truong flew the boy between Australia, the United States, France and Germany to record at least eight other pedophiles sexually abuse him.

They shared images and videos on their perverted network, which specialized in depictions of boys between 6 and 8 years old, federal prosecutors said.

"Personally … I think this is probably the worst (pedophile) rings ... if not the worst ring I've ever heard of," investigator Brian Bone of the U.S. Postal Inspection Service told Australia’s Seven News.

Newton addressed the U.S. federal courtroom in Indiana in shackles Friday. His voice quavered as he said, "being a father was an honor and a privilege that amounted to the best six years of my life.">
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/2-convicted-adopted-son-porn-article-1.1385895

Gays can be paedophiles, lesbians too.

Ima...none of your crazy links worked. What a pity...

After all this complete madness on this thread, I just want to say that Victoria got the adoption laws right.
AJ, I will leave you to it. There is no way you can reason with this lot....