I dont really care if children are raised by same sex parents or sole parents, but NO parent has the right to deny their child the truth about their origin or deny their child information about who their biological parent is. Apart from anything else, this legislation is about re-writing or erasing a child's real history. The parents who support it have tricked government into colluding with their deep insecurities.
Despite the quality of even the best parent-child relationship, most children will always want information about their origins. Same-sex or single parents are deluded if they think the fact of their name on the birth certificate will pursude a child they are its only or real parent. Only a moron would think they can convince their child of this. And, unless they support the child discovering information about their biological parent then they seriously risk losing the love of their child in the long-term.

nelle

I agree with you, the child is most affected yet his/her needs and rights are ruthlessly disregarded to make an adult feel good. How can Anna Bligh anticipate the consent of the child to the falsification of his/her birth record and is it ethical to do so?

In any event, with more and more medical science demonstrating the relevance of genetic inheritance to disease, what right has anyone to destroy information that could be crucial to the child's later health decisions?

Dr.van Gend has some valid points he raised when he stated that all children have a right to know both their parents if at all possible, and preferably to live with them.

He lost me however when he mentioned being a committee member of the Family Council of Queensland. I looked it up, and yes , there were some other groups involved that made the whole article smell of anti-gay sentiments.
These other members included the Australian Family Association, the Salvation Army, the Catholic Church, and the Festival of Light.

The world has moved on from the 'good old days' when most families did consist of mum, dad and the kids. These religious groups need to move on with the times and realise that children need love in their lives- no matter from whom it comes from.

I do not agree that children should never be allowed to know any details about their biological mother or father in the case of surrogacy though.

At the very least, they should have medical and genetic information about their biological parents, as they should have after adoption as well.

If people such as single mothers and gay couples go through all the terrible problems they must do just to have a baby with a surrogate, then they are really wanting to have and love that baby.

Far better circumstances than many fertile two parent households who never wanted some of their children in the first place.

I totally reject falsification of records as ever being necessary or defensible. It should always be a serious offence. This is an objectionable and dangerous precedent by the State.

Those who proposed and supported it are unworthy of occupying a position of trust in the bureaucracy or in Parliament.

Reading all David's other threads, it is clear that he is just another deeply religious catholic? bigot whose philosophy is more "thy shalt not" than "help thy neighbor"

Thank god he is in a minority.

Democritus, van Gend is not making a religious case against surrogacy, so whatever it might be, his religion is not a basis on which to dismiss his article.

The problems with the article are that it
(a) cherry-picks from dodgy studies,
(b) follows the tobacco industry methodology of citing a legitimate-sounding professional body, which on closer examination turns out to be a front for partisan lobbying, and
(c) relies on folk wisdom rather than science.

In a modern technology-rich world, folk wisdoms (“self-evident facts of life”) are no longer a safe way of organising human societies. The world turned out to be round, not flat, and science is showing that “common sense” often lets us down when dealing with complex human societies. Sure, “every child has a right to a mother and a father” sounds like an absolute pearl of wisdom, except that it denies the reality of deadbeat dads, mothers who would prefer a career to child-rearing, and the twists of fate that rend families asunder. Should a child whose mother is lesbian be condemned to life with a father and a mother who don’t love each other, or have the benefit of two mothers who “report greater relationship satisfaction” (see quote above http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10049#161876)?

In another example of his lazy and misleading cherry-picking, van Gend quotes the never-enacted 1959 UN Declaration on the Rights of the Child. The 1989 UN Convention on the Rights of the Child http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/crc.htm, to which Australia is a signatory, states in article 2:

“States Parties shall take all appropriate measures
to ensure that the child is protected against all
forms of discrimination or punishment on the
basis of the status, activities, expressed opinions,
or beliefs of the child's parents, legal guardians,
or family members.”

With census data indicating that 20% of Australian lesbian couples and 5% of gay male couples are raising children http://www.hreoc.gov.au/human_rights/samesex/report/Ch_5.html#2 , the folksy righteousness of “every child has a right to a mother and a father” denies the reality of their children’s lives. It’s also an attack on the growing number of children born in (now nationally legal) surrogacy arrangements.