The author writes: "One very important new book in this regard is Out From Under by Dawn Stefanowicz. It is a shocking story of a child thrust into the world of male homosexuality. It is a story of abuse, betrayal, loneliness and suffering. The book tells it all: her dad’s multiple male lovers and sexual escapades; the abuse she suffered at the hands of her dad; the string of boyfriends her dad had at the house; the emotional, psychological and physical dangers she experienced growing up.

No one can read this moving story and not see how destructive homosexual parenting is to a child. It is an important book, but because it speaks the truth about homosexuality, do not expect it to be featured in the mainstream media, except as a dismissal of it."

There are untold numbers of books in which victims of emotional, physical and sexual child abuse tell the story of their suffering. About 99.9% of them are written by people who suffered this abuse in a heterosexual environment.

It is disgraceful that the author should ignore this fact in his argument. In deliberately ignoring this fact, he loses what little credibility he had.

There are many heterosexuals who bring children into their lives to gratify their own needs, as is evinced by the child abuse statistics in this country.

It is a very evil ( not a word I use lightly) thing to argue that these low motives can be solely attributed to homosexuals, when the evidence is overwhelmingly otherwise.

Thanks Bill for bringing some commonsense to a very perverse arguement that has been swallowed by many. Again the rights of the child comes last. What a joke. Thankfully a day is coming when God will have had enough of this perversion. People will be dumb enough to blame Him for bringing order to the corrupt minds of mankind.

I don't understand why people are against the love of two people? Also does the author think about the thousands of children in Australia in happy same sex couple families who would be hurt by this article? Why do you have so much hate towards people wanting to enjoy the love of their partner and look after a child?

The arguments used have no credibility. My lovely neighbours in a same sex relationship have a little boy who is healthy and happy. Because the couple are living in a same sex relationship they have enforced visits from child welfare to check on the child. This implies that the child is at risk and has a detrimental effect on the parents who feel like they are being monitored. I feel so sad that I will not have to go through the same thing with my child. I have my wedding certificate on my wall, and I look at it and think how unfair it is that the lovely couple next door, can not, although they have been together for over 12 years, have a house together and a committed relationship.

And the argument that a child needs both a masculine and feminine role model should not be an issue when talking about same sex relationships. Often, as in all relationships there are feminine and masculine attributes given from both partners. With my neighbours, one of the partners has very feminine attributes and the other is very masculine. Their child will definately have both sides of parental modeling. I can not see one reason why their beautiful boy would be disadvantaged. Actually I think having parents with such a solid and long standing commitment to each other would be more than many children would be lucky enough to experience.

This offensive arguing has to stop. Lets let people love and give love and maybe focus our attention to other matters which may decrease violence and hate, such as homophobia and racism.

Dear Runner
Can you tell me if and when God will have had enough of the rights of a child being trampled because of child abuse, especially when it's inflicted by his worshippers?
How much does God need children to suffer, before he says, enough I'm gonna smite you?
Just asking.

Excellent piece. I share your concerns. Intentionally creating fatherless and motherless families is dangerous. Many homosexual men are opposed to “gay marriage” and adoptions for a number of reasons. There is a real debate in the “gay community” but the media is only reporting one side.

Excellent article. It's refreshing to see someone with enough courage to state the obvious without fearing a backlash from the general media manipulated public.
It's a child's right to a natural upbringing which only a heterosexual couple can provide. It's also the states duty to look after and out for the rights of all it's citizens not just those that can vote!
In a day and age where the institute of marriage is continuously under attack, where abortion is pushed onto society by simplistic and self serving ideologies and where rape, exploitation and child abuse is so prevalent, it's hardly surprising that this sort of absurdity would be up for debate in parliament.

" there exists a mountain of social science research which demonstrates that children do best when raised in a biological, two-parent household, cemented by marriage"

Surely, for the kids being adopted out - this was never going to happen?
.

Quite so, McReal. That's the most obvious of Muehlenberg's intellectual con jobs here. A child who is in need of adoption obviously doesn't have access to their biological parents, ipso facto.

This is just another thinly disguised expression of fundamentalist Christian homophobia, sold under the guise of "what about the children?".

Typical.

McReal, good point.

Bill Muehlenberg is in the long line of experts from many and varied academic humanities speaking out against adverse outcomes of the relentless march, which is in progress, of the gay rights movement.

In this case it is a missive which decries adoption by gay couples. Blind Freddie could argue against such an absurdity as the right to adopt children by gay couples

The question is as always forward; where do the misfit lefty “gay” activists get off the band wagon in decrying human rights abuse. Well, obviously not at the intersection where their own perceived mistreatment by a tolerant society conflicts with those of children.

Thanks to OLO for contributing some balance in the “gay rights” debate: and it is interesting also the article directs criticism at the media, for its soft approach and lack of balance in debate on key social issues such as adoption of children by homosexuals

Studies show that children raised by a Lesbian couple have better outcomes than a heterosexual couple.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19014-children-of-lesbian-parents-do-better-than-their-peers.html

"The children of lesbian parents outscore their peers on academic and social tests, according to results from the longest-running study of same-sex families"

Therefore the arguments about needing a mother and a father are all invalidated.

Furthermore if a childs rights are an issue and they have a right to the ideal parenting situation then therfore children should ideally be raised by lesbian parents and have a right to be raised by lesbian parents.

Bayne MacGregor, you might want to have a look at this article: http://www.mercatornet.com/family_edge/view/7389/

There is a number of flaws in the way the study was conducted and really should not be seen as the be all end all of evidence behind why there is no issue with homosexual adoption.

Interestingly they have an quote from an article by Professor Walter Schumm who wrote:
"While the NLLFS results [1] may appear to support policies favoring the rights of gay, lesbian, or bisexual (GLB) parents, they could also be interpreted as evidence against the fitness of male parents, regardless of sexual orientation, placing gay father couples at risk for being seen as even less fit than couples with only one father. However, at present, there is far less research on gay fathering than there has been for lesbian parenting, leaving us with few empirical answers concerning any effects of gay fathering."

Australian's rights seem to erode more and more every year.
Governments and corporations are pushing families apart. they know that when one is off balance, they can be easily manipulated.
Look, we are in a battle between the forces of dark and light. I don't have the answer to any of our problems but just to emplore you to think, thank and do the right thing. Look into your heart and see if it is full of meism or youism.

Bill's article is full of commonsense and reality. Adoption of children by homosexual couples is a bizzare concept and against the best interests of children.

Another OLO article which is basically just an excuse for 'gay-bashing'.

I'll put the same question to Bill I put to Warwick, who are we going to put a stop to straight parents bringing gay kids into the world? Obviously if we could stamp out gays at the source there'd be none of this nonsense about gays being caring and compassionate as straight people, now would there?

Here's an idea, stop straights from breeding - neuter the lot of them, result: no more gays.

PS

Will OLO publish two pro-gay adoptive parents articles, just for balance?

Johnny Rotten - I LOVE that question! Brilliant!

I find it rather ignorant that when someone like Bill raises concern and disagrees with homosexual adoption, people drag out terms like 'gay bashing' and make claims about a hatred Bill or other fellow Christians (including myself) have for gays. Nowhere has he done or said such things. As a Christian i might not agree with the lifestyle choice of homosexuals (including my gay brother), but i still show respect to them. All i hope is that i receive respect in return. But alas as some of these comments show, the pro homosexual adoption/marriage/etc types wear a victim mindset and show no respect to those whom disagree. Minorities can still be bigots.

The evidence is clear that children raised in a loving and nurturing family enivornment with a strong male and female to look up to is critical in a childs development. There is currently a very long line of these people waiting to adopt a child of their own (hence overseas/ third world adoption). However the evidence is not so clear as to homosexual adoption. A single study (raised before) with questionable methodology is not conclusive proof.

Homosexual adoption has 0% to do with gay rights. It is solely the rights of the child that we should be worried about and exactly what i applaud Bill for doing. So how about the LGBT lobby groups stop using this as a tool in their campaigns. Having a child is a privilege, not a right.

Nate10

So you would disapprove of your brother fostering or adopting a child?

Have you told him that you don't think he would be as good a parent as you because he is gay?

Briar Rose says: "It is a very evil ( not a word I use lightly) thing to argue that these low motives can be solely attributed to homosexuals, when the evidence is overwhelmingly otherwise." I would agree with you Briar and so would Bill Muehlenberg. Why do you set up a straw man like this. It is the case that the overwhelming majority of children do not have gay or lesbian parents because homosexuals are a very small percentage of the community and are engaged in sterile sexual relationships. None of this changes the facts of the matter as outlined by Mr Muehlenberg. The academic studies are in. What a pity that the majority of Lower House Members of the NSW Parliament have taken no notice.

And Tilly J says: "I don't understand why people are against the love of two people? Also does the author think about the thousands of children in Australia in happy same sex couple families who would be hurt by this article? Why do you have so much hate towards people wanting to enjoy the love of their partner and look after a child?" There is not a word in Mr Muehlenberg which is unloving let alone "against love". Again this is setting up straw men and not dealing with the well argued position of one who has bothered to get the facts. The truth is what matters. Not whether or not some people "can't handle the truth" as Tom Cruise would say

i never got the oppurtunity to meet my dad, so when anyone starts declaring they dont need both their mum and dad it gets me so damn angry.
Do we have to wait until the future generation of children of same sex marriage grow up with their deep rooted doubts and insecurities to learn of the truth behind the affects of this social experiment..
A child deserves their right to have both mum and dad, many a single parent can play the "role" of the opposite parent, NONE can fill the void of not knowing them!
As if not knowing your biological parents is not enough for a kid to deal with, add to that having to justify to his peers that his parents are gay is not only unfair, but selfish on the gay parents part!
but thats just my opinion!
A gay parent may offer unconditional love and be fantastic parents but they can also be pathetic and abusive morons as some heterosexual parents out there are too.
Being gay dont make you a great parent, a great parent does what is in the best interest of the child, children need the love and role model of a loving mother AND father, which can not be achieved in a same sex adoption!

well said mumsy!

I so sick of hearing - "why are you against two people loving one another and living in a relationship that reflects that". We aren't, though studies show that homosexual relationships last a relatively short time in comparison to heterosexual relationships so I'd question that the basis for these relationship is actually love and maybe more lust, longing or need than love, which involves putting the other person first. But we are *for* two people loving one another (in the true sense of putting that person first) from the point of a parent and child relationship - and that's what we're asking people to do - think about the kids, not yourselves for just a second.

The best situation is dad and mum - they need both, and no matter how good a parent (single or gay) you may be, ultimately a child needs both for learning a deep sense of self-realisation and validation.

Johnny that is by far the dumbest question i've ever come across on this forum! And briar rose your endorsement is rather silly.

Johnny Rotten, no i haven't told him as such. But he has expressed no intention of wanting a child. Seems pretty content with his cats. He however has 'married' his partner under British law (not recognised by Australia). In that circumstance i expressed my views, but i still ended up attending the 'wedding' (which ended up a pagan hand fasting ceremony much to my entire Christian families surprise). Note i don't actually support changing the marriage act to allow gay marriage but that is not what this debate is about.

Unlike the 'marriage', a child adoption directly impacts the child. Whole different ball park.

As for "Have you told him that you don't think he would be as good a parent as you because he is gay?". That is a ridiculous question but i suspect you know that. This is not a question of who can exhibit better parenting skills. It is a question of whether an adopting family can provide the optimum environment for an unwanted child. And it is tried and tested that this is a mother and father. My brother and his partner would not be able to provide for a child in the ways a mother could. That is a biological fact.

Get over yourself mumsy, you're not the only person in this world to not know their father. Generalising the future from that and pretending you know how other people's kids are going to feel is the height of hubris. As if being adopted is not bad enough we have people like you who feel that the kids will have to justify who their parents are. Some peole just get on with life and learn to cope.

Unfair Bugsy. Mumsy's experience is a dominate one among people in her position. The academic studies show this. Mumsy's is the human face of this suffering so she should be treated with respect.

So it's only fair to generalise if you think that your experience is the dominant one John?

Do they do academic studies on people who have no emotional problems by being raised by one parent?

Yes, Bugsy, they do. Read the studies. They examine a representative group. Not all are inconvenienced but most are. Mumsy's experience is both real and representative. Deal with it even though it may challenge your ideological beliefs. You may wish things are different but it is the truth of the matter withbwhich we have to deal.

My natural inclination is to support gay and lesbian people who are seeking marriage and adoption equality as I'm a bit of a libertarian. However, of the arguments presented here I've found those against gay and lesbian parenting a bit more convincing. I have always thought it odd that gay and lesbian marriage seems to be out of the question for all but the very left wing while g&l adoption is reasonably well accepted across the political spectrum. As many have said, it involves children with no say in the matter and should be considered more deeply.

Why don't they make laws against it John?

Oh, that's right, that would be stupid.

A law against what, Bugsy? What are you on about? More emotion, more ideology. Can't you argue the issue?

Nate 10, thankyou for posting a reasoned response!

The methodological issues raised about this one study are interesting but unless there is a better comparative study of a higher standard then there can be no better claims of a comparative fitness of heterosexual parenting compared to homosexual and lesbian parenting, so without a better methodology comparative study that shows a disadvantage from same-sex parenting then one cannot be assumed to exist. As science works by best available evidence then logically the study still stands. And this was not the only study to find the same results!

Now when the demographics issues of disadvantage you raised with that study mentioned are taken into account by other studies? http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/08/100831091240.htm Gay parenting still is equal to hetero parenting when those factors are taken into account! The quality academic studies still back same-sex adoption!

Another issue: We already allow same-sex couples to foster children, often they look after the child to adulthood. So by preventing adoption the child is denied inheritance rights and stability and next-of-kin status for no actual benefit making all the 'mother and a father' arguments spurious logical fallacies for many of the children who would actually be adopted.

In many cases it's not about whether the child should be adopted by gays or heterosexuals but whether they will be adopted at all or by no-one because the available people, same-sex couples, are unavailable.

Isn't there some sort of disconnect here though John? (by the way, could you point me in the direction of these studies I should read?)

'I have emotional problems because I didn't know my father, therefore gays shouldn't adopt'.

As Dick points out, children don't have any say in the matter.

Children never get to choose their parents, that's life. There's heaps of catholics and other types of morons out there that got married 'cause on of them got pregnant. Many of their children wish they had a say. But children cope. That's what humans do. If you have a loving pair of people supporting you through your life, who would have major problems? Probably the ones who listen to the likes of you in society who them they should have some.

The very fact that gay couples choose to have a child to love and are willing to be put on the adoption waiting list and wait for years and be put under the intense scrutiny that goes with it, means that I would certainly think that they could at least qualify to be put on the list. The argument that they have 'short lived relationships' seems silly to me, I know couples on the adoption waiting list that have been on it longer than a fair percentage of heterosexual marriages.

Tilly J
You’re a worry Tilly J. Here is an idiom that may help you better understand love; “One man’s meat is another man’s poison”. The article discusses the potential welfare of children adopted. Happiness is but one issue and I would safely say a minor one compared to the safety of the child.

The homosexual lobby do not agree amongst themselves on the legitimacy of the twin issues of marriage and adoption and the long term usefulness of both to themselves, so the best description for homosexual parenting and adoption is, in a word, “risk”. Consequently in a phrase, “social or breaching experiment”.

What is urgently needed here in Australia with its high ethnic and religious diversity is strong research which explores its ability as a social unit to adjust to changes which the gay and lesbian lobby are currently attempting to inflict on it through objective political allegiances with the Australian Labor party and the Greens. All the more reason I suggest to wish for an Abbott government; on this issue alone

The studies do seem to indicate that children statistically do best when parented by two parents, and when the parents are married.

This is why church groups are so opposed to widows and widowers bringing up children alone, and why they are so much in favour of Gay marriage.

Oh wait... they're not, are they?

Hypocrites.

It's one thing to honestly be against homosexuality, and recognition of homosexual relationships, purely on Religious grounds. It's when they make up stuff because they know that their religious beliefs alone aren't convincing that they bear false witness.

See
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/peds.2009-3153v1
http://www.stanford.edu/~mrosenfe/Rosenfeld_Nontraditional_Families_Demography.pdf

Hypocrites? Ummm.. they seem to always imply that the marriage has to be between a heterosexual couple when they state the child's natural born right to a mum and dad. In fact marriage as recognised by the church can only exist between a man and woman so i dare say there is nothing hypocritical about that. Try not to manipulate what the church says in an effort to serve your own baseless argument...

All this argument about gay adoption is rather silly anyway, given that there are so few kids available for adoption in Australia.
A male, homosexual couple would have an almost nil chance of adopting an unrelated child at all!

Carrying on about the evils of most one parent families not working well
must surely upset the millions of parents around the world who have had to do this after one parent was killed in a war.

Did we see mass problems with kids after they lost their fathers en mass
after the world wars?

Kids are very resilient, and if they can't have both a mother and a father to grow up with, then most will manage just fine.

Bugsy, with all due respect, i couldnt care less what one does behind closed bedroom doors, and i have no problems leaving my kiddo's with my gay aunt on the school holidays because she is an awesome person and a great influence in my life, i see her no different to my straight uncle.
So hopefully now you understand i am not a homophobe!
My story involves being born during a feminist movement that advocated that women dont need men, men could sow their wild oats regardless of consequences and little kids being born in the middle of the breakdown of the family unit all with society ignorant to the effect it would have on the kids, just so the adults could have it their way!
Sure there are millions of us who grew up and learned to cope with it, but the question is, why put that pressure on a kid? Just because kids find a way to cope doesnt make it right to give them something they will need to learn how to cope with!
No doubt my mum thought id get over it, that as long as i had her i would cope.. guess what, i would have rathered to know the alleged "jerk", then to have spent years wishing he was around!
Btw, i do not condone children being ridiculed by their peers, its what kids do, despite the lengths gay activists go to, to demand tolerance, kids will never see it as natural unless manipulated by those who advocate it and are taught to defend it.
Children should be giggling with embarrassment about sexual issues, not having to defend the ones they love for their sexual preferences, nor should they have to wish and wonder why they dont have a mum and dad like their friends do and spend a childhood being different from everyone else!
only time will tell what affects it will have, but if you think its totally harmless to all children, you may be in for a big surprise

The issue about gay adoption actually has more to do with a partner being able to adopt the natural child of his or her partner.

Considering that most lesbian mothers conceive via sperm donors who have no claim whatsoever to the child, the partner who has been with the child often for years and who is a de facto parent is simply asking to legalise the arrangement.

As pointed out there are few children up for adoption, and so this is a complete furphy.

The children in dispute are as Shadow Minister points out, the children of a partner in an established gay relationship, and children who are already being fostered by gay couples.

There are very few children available for adoption in this country who are not already in care of some kind. Even heterosexuals have to go overseas to adopt. This is because the cruel Christian moralities of earlier times that forced women to relinquish children born "out of wedlock" no longer control our society, so mothers keep their offspring instead of "putting them up for adoption."

The adoption of children described in the first paragraph should be of no concern to anyone. It is very cruel to those children to leave them in a legal limbo, without rights and protections that other children automatically have. This is not about the sexual preferences of the adoptive parents. It is about the child's right to equality in this world.

Christians have as usual tried to over-rule those concerns with their take on the morality of same sex relationships. All they are doing is preventing justice for these children. This is what Christians usually do - they manage to make their moral take dominant at the expense of a wider justice and decency.

The reality is there is no source of newborns for adoption anymore. There are many children needing fostering and adoption, and they usually aren't cute newborns with no tough miles on the clock. If these children can be loved and cherished by same sex couples, who has any right to deny them that opportunity? Especially if that denial is based on nothing more than a religious morality.

All you people who refuse the idea of same sex adoption, just think about those children for a minute. Because contrary to what you argue, it is solely about those children and giving them a chance at life.

Well said suzeonline, Shadow Minister and briar rose. This article is a disingenuous beat-up by fundamentalist Christian activist who wants to maintain the current discrimination against gay people and their kids.

Why don't these godbotherers ever argue honestly?

I think this article is an absolute disgrace. Clearly this author has not done his research and knows nothing about the working of the minds of homosexual parents. He describes them as selfish and "wrong" but does he not realise that homosexual people want kids just for the same reasons as most heterosexual people want them, which is to give them love and happiness?

There are so many kids brought up in drug addicted and abusive heterosexual homes, and yet you're probably alright with this but somehow it is bad when a gay couple adopt a kid and give it love. Yes, obviously you are on the right track here!

Having no father/mother but two of one will not harm the child the way you claim it will. Having a father or mother who doesn't care would indeed harm the child but in the case of homosexual parents the child would have two parents who love it very much, and yet you see that as wrong?

Reading this article makes me think of attitudes of 50 years ago. It is people like the author who cause equality for gay people to never happen, with his un-founded views and lack of empathy

Seems to me that OLO has taken a lurch to the far right (it was always slightly right if centre) but with the publishing of virtually 2 identical articles condemning the adoption of children by same sex couples is troubling indeed.

I guess only the ABC has to provide balance.

As others have pointed out the numbers of children available for adoption is few and the scrutiny that prospective adoptives parents are placed under is intense. A shame that prospective biological parents aren't placed un the same inquisition - might eliminate.

Having just posted at Wariwck's equally bigoted attitude to same sex couples, I have no wish to repeat myself, so will indulge in a link to my post there.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10934&page=0#181781

Nate10

" My brother and his partner would not be able to provide for a child in the ways a mother could. That is a biological fact.
Posted by Nate10, Friday, 3 September 2010 6:50:27 PM"

Riiight. Men can't get preggers only women, we know that. We also know that men are as capable of caring and compassion as women and if you are going to mention breastfeeding - not all women can do this and I know from my own experience men are just as able to heat a bottle as women.

I can well understand why you haven't mentioned any of this to your brother, he might think you are a bigot.

Bill, not only are the rights of the child being ignored in the gay and lesbian push for legitimacy but so are the basic facts of life.

Males and females of all species are designed by nature to create life. In human society, for thousands of years, men and women create life and bring up the children. That way children learn the difference between males and females and how they relate to each other. Nature, in its wisdom, also has designed things so that two males or two females cannot create children, no matter how hard they try!

Putting children in a situation of having two fathers or two mothers is, dare I say it, completely unnatural! It gives the child a one-sided, distorted view of adult human relationships.

If gays and lesbians want to live together, then good luck to them.

But keep innocent children out of it.

http://www.dangerouscreation.com

I agree David G. Furthermore what strikes me as rather sad is this anti christian paranoia that seems to evoke such emotion as to totally disregard the legitimacy of the rationality of the simple factual argument that children do indeed have a born right to a mother and father, as nature (however you define it) intended.

The only Christian agenda it seems is to protect and look out for the rights of innocent children foremost to selfish adults who's happiness seems to essentially hinder on the deprivation of a child's right to a mum and dad.

If there is justification in making the interests of the child paramount when deciding who should adopt, then shouldn't this apply equally to the question of whether two people should be allowed to produce a child biologically? Think of all the misery inflicted on so many people simply because their parents were cruel, exploitative, incompetent or just plain stupid. I'm sure that two loving and intelligent homosexual adoptive parents would do an immensely better job of child-raising than many of those biological parents did.

So shouldn't we legislate to outlaw reproduction without a license, which will be issued to aspiring heterosexual parents subject to their passing a strict assessment of their fitness for parenthood?

And to all those ridiculous people who keep bleating about the "lifestyle choice" of homosexuals, get into your heads this simple fact: homosexuality is not a matter of choice; like heterosexuality it is biologically determined.

Oh and for what it's worth I'll mention that I'm a practising Christian.

Children have no rights. Just hypocritical adults with 'do as l say, not as l do' rules. Parents have obligations. When the youngens become adults, they'll come to understand that. Or not probably.

Crabsy, as a Christian maybe you should review what the bible says about homosexuality. Not simply disregard or rewrite the bible because a sin makes you uncomfortable to rally against.

Johnny Rotten:
"A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially one exhibiting intolerance, irrationality, and animosity toward those of differing beliefs. The predominant usage in modern American English refers to persons hostile to those of differing race, ethnicity, nationality, sexual orientation and religion."

So far it has been you exhibiting the bigotry.

My argument ties in more with the fact that while both genders can provide love and compassion, they provide it in different ways. A child by the pure fact of having a mother and father, will also have a parent of the same gender of whom they can learn and develop from.

We each are shaped individually by our parents, but particularly from the parent of the same gender. On the negative extreme, the child abuse cycle can particularly be devastating when experienced by a parent of the same gender. Another example (highlighted in an advertising campaign in Victoria) is sons developing the same drinking habits of their fathers. Yes they can also learn of their mothers, but it is particularly damaging from a father. There is genuinely a connection that all children will have with their same sex parent. When this doesn't exist due to lack of same sex parent, there can often be a negative impact on development. Sometimes the consequences of this take time to exhibit including even when they have kids of their own. Plenty of people can testify to this. In allowing same sex adoption, some might make it through unscathed, but some may not. I object because i just don't think it should be left to chance.

Crabsy, Bill in the article makes reference to a case where a child was raised in a homosexual environment in which she experienced the abuse as well. So the abuse can come from homosexual environments as well.

We have no control over who 'reproduce'. We do however have control over adoption.

Nate10

<Crabsy, as a Christian maybe you should review what the bible says about homosexuality. Not simply disregard or rewrite the bible because a sin makes you uncomfortable to rally against.>

Don't tell me how to be a Christian! Your authoritarian approach is the very reason why there is so much misery and evil perpetrated in the name of God. The Bible is not a book of rules, and any effort to read it that way will lead to contradictions and grievous errors. It is a window through which we can glimpse flickers of the Divine, but it must not be taken literally.

<Crabsy, Bill in the article makes reference to a case where a child was raised in a homosexual environment in which she experienced the abuse as well. So the abuse can come from homosexual environments as well...We have no control over who 'reproduce'. We do however have control over adoption.>

Well, yes, I have actually read the article for myself. And you have made my very point: homosexuality/heterosexuality is not the issue; the crux of the problem is bad parents irrespective of sexual orientation. So in my (admittedly extreme) scenario any child born to unlicensed parents would be taken away from them.

I'm putting an end to the 'natural' argument. It's very easy to do.

Please can everyone who tries to use 'nature' as an argument actually learn about nature? Cause the ignorance is astonishing embarassing and harmful to understanding.

Look at Ants for example, one of the most successful animals on earth. Do they all reproduce? No. Almost all ants are infertile females with only a tiny minority of reproducing ants in each nest, yet all those infertile females are sure good at raising children! In Evolution this is called Kin Selection, where having non-reproducing relatives looking after your kids is advantageous.

Heck the Gay Penguins alone destroy the 'unnatural' argument, and there's quite a few different animals where same-sex couples often raise orphans!

The evidence for a biological cause for homosexuality, not to mention the transgender gene discoveries, suggests that Kin Selection has been working through human evolution. The reason humans live beyond menopause is considered to be because of the advantage of grandparent child-rearing continuing beyond their fertility. Humans have one of the longest childhoods of the animal world needing many years of care so having members of the community rearing children while not overpopulating the community themselves has been argued to be one of our species greatest advantages.

Same-sex Adoption is found in Nature. Therefore Same-sex Adoption is Natural. Q.E.D.

Sadly, the 'love' that most people claimed in the same sex relationships should have been 'lust' instead.

Lust should be a more appropriate word to use on their 'preferred' perverted life-style. Love is seriously has nothing to do with it.

Thanks Bill, for yet another excellence article.

God bless and keep you.

If some christains think "that children do indeed have a born right to a mother and father" and that children do best when raised by both biological parents then they should be protesting against a god idea which all to often deprives children of that right due to the death of a parent.

I agree that it's best for kids to grow up in a home with biological parents who love one another and create a healthy environment in the home. Unfortunately things don't always go that way (and as a former christian I know it's not always that way in christian homes).

As other have already pointed out for kid's up for adoption that's not going to be an option that's available. Strike that one off the list.

Is the next factor on the list the number of parents involved, the mix of gender's or the character of home the children are growing up in?

I'd bet on the character of the home, do the adults threat each other with respect? Do the parents make the personal sacrifices it takes to raise children?

I've known people raised in extremist christian homes who have spoken of the torment of their upbringing and the strange lives they were forced to lead because of their parents extreme views. Should we ban all christian's from having children (or adopting them) because it's possible to find examples where it's gone wrong? If so what group would be left?

A beat up article based on religious dogma and some flawed arguments.

Perhaps the author can point to some serious research which shows that kid's are better off being raised in a string of foster homes or in seriously dysfunctional heterosexual homes than by gay couples.

R0bert

SH Tan - Your post goes a long way towards explaining why there's such a lot of anti-Christian sentiment around these days.

You aren't doing your cause any good by claiming to know what is and isn't "love."

The problem for me with taking Christians seriously is that so many of you are arrogant or delusional enough to think you know what love is, and who is and isn't capable of feeling it.

As I will continue to say to any Christian who crosses my path - first take the mote out of your own eye, and then you can legitimately turn your attention to the rest of humanity. But as long as all you Christians do not publicly comment on what your churches have done and continue to do to children in your care, you have no right to any voice at all in the morality or otherwise of how the rest of us live our lives. And that goes for the most important of you to the most ordinary.

Just a sentence will do, before you launch into your rigorous judgements of others. Something simple. Like as a Christian I am ashamed and I am sorry for what has been done to the little ones by our churches.

BWT - what's wrong with lust, anyway?

S H Tan, I'm with Briar Rose on this one: of course gay and lesbian couples can love each other, as much as heterosexual couples can. I'm sure they have their ups and downs, like any other couples. What's so un-Christian about loving one another ?

Just let people be.

Vile insulting article to any who are not fundamentalist christian (or Muslim - they hold similar beliefs about gays and women).

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/backgroundbriefing/stories/2010/2997472.htm

>> Desiderata

Go placidly amid the noise and the haste, and remember what peace there may be in silence. As far as possible without surrender be on good terms with all persons. Speak your truth quietly and clearly; and listen to others, even to the dull and the ignorant, they too have their story. Avoid loud and aggressive persons, they are vexations to the spirit.

If you compare yourself with others, you may become vain or bitter; for always there will be greater and lesser persons than yourself. Enjoy your achievements as well as your plans. Keep interested in your own career, however humble; it is a real possession in the changing fortunes of time.

Exercise caution in your business affairs, for the world is full of trickery. But let not this blind you to what virtue there is; many persons strive for high ideals, and everywhere life is full of heroism. Be yourself. Especially do not feign affection. Neither be cynical about love; for in the face of all aridity and disenchantment it is as perennial as the grass. Take kindly the counsel of the years, gracefully surrendering the things of youth.

Nurture strength of spirit to shield you in sudden misfortune. But do not distress yourself with dark imaginings. Many fears are born of fatigue and loneliness. Beyond a wholesome discipline, be gentle with yourself. You are a child of the universe, no less than the trees and the stars; you have a right to be here. And whether or not it is clear to you, no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should.

Therefore, be at peace with God, whatever you conceive Him to be. And whatever your labors and aspirations in the noisy confusion of life, keep peace in your soul. With all its sham, drudgery and broken dreams; it is still a beautiful world. Be cheerful.

Strive to be happy.

Max Ehrmann, 1927 <<

Nature decided that, for the benefit of the human species, a man and a woman alone should procreate and care for their children. Nature firmly closed the door on two women or two men procreating.

It seems that nature got it right and that humans, by trying to rewrite the rule book to suit the demands of a fringe group, are barking up the wrong tree.

Who are we to argue with or interfere with nature?

David G

I guess the term "extended family" is completely lost on you.

In addition the nuclear family (mum, dad & genetically related kids) is a recent cultural phenomenon - in the past, kids were cared for by relatives (who may or may not be straight) while mum and dad tends the fields or worked in other industries such as weaving, pottery. As for the wealthy they had butlers and nannies - who may or may not have been straight.

And still no-one has responded to the issue that biological parents are giving birth to gays! Ban opposite sex marriage - that'll fix 'em.

David G at what point do you decide that you have reached the right balance between nature and interference?

The fact that you appear to be using a computer to post to an internet forum seems to suggest that you are not living wild and naked in the bush somewhere. So you have accepted some variation from nauture.
Not even a Quaker who has decided that perfect balance was achieved sometime before the invention of the motor car.

Do you take a pain killer if you are in serious pain? Would you want a loved one to see a doctor about that worrying lump or does the imperative not "to argue with or interfere with nature" override such petty concerns as your own enjoyment of life or the life of a loved one?

Do you still content that we should not argue with or interfere with nature?

R0bert

Reading through this thread, I get a feeling from the religous right "christians", that they consider gay people as unaceptable members of the community.
Would those same said people accept, that a child is an individual innocent person from birth, that they do not have ownership of that child, other than to ensure the safe and loving upbringing of the child. That to indocrinate the child with ones own ideology and dogma, is tantamount to child abuse.
I as gay person having practising christian parents, have received nought but love from them and my siblings, and they themselves are disturbed by the vitriolic comments towards gay people, by so called "christians".
May your god forgive you, for your hateful attitude towards your fellow beings.

Enough with the illogical idiocy being spewed forth from both sides. Here's some simple logic-bombs for those of you on both sides of the argument:

1) The author says the ideal outcome is the biological mother and father. As pointed out that's not possible for adopted children. So Muehlenberg's central premise is irrelevant. This leads to point 2:

2) The 'next best options'.
Now, after shredding his central premise, we come to the crux of Muehlenberg's argument - the next best option is a committed, stable relationship, with a man and a woman.

I don't think there's much disagreement here. I would agree with this (for the simple fact that it offers the perspectives of both genders).
The problem I have, is that there doesn't seem to be a similar crusade arguing against single parents, widows or widowers adopting children.

This exposes the hypocrisy of the other side. A stable, committed loving gay couple is infinitely preferable to a single-parent.
If you're not willing to acknowledge that, then you're the one being led by ideology. Two parents are better than one, more time, resources and commitment.
One parent is better than no parent.

Simple really.

So, here's a simple checklist anyone can follow:

1st choice: Stable, committed heterosexual parents.
2nd choice: stable, committed, homosexual parents.
3rd choice: single parent.

The real devil is in the detail. This is the roughest of guidelines. If the 2nd choice has no history of health problems that could potentially affect the life of the child, they leapfrog to number one in the event that the first choice has some kind of health condition that prevents them from certain aspects of parenting.

Ultimately, if homosexual couples really do have the kinds of lifestyles they're accused of, then this would rule them out - not because they're gay, but because of the home environment.

So screw the ideology from both sides. This isn't an ideological war, at least is shouldn't be. That's the one thing Muehlenberg is right about, though that hinders, not helps, his crusade.

I'm heartened by the recent posts from Johnny Rotten, R0bert, Kipp and especially TRTL.

I'll just add, for David G's benefit, that in my experience as a former anthropologist the supposedly "natural" nuclear family is a relatively recent invention. In many cultures there are numerous people besides their biological parents that children call "father" or "mother", or with whom they have a defined equivalent relationship to what most Westerners would regard as parent-child kinship. Indeed, anthropological literature is full of it.

Today, in some parts of Indigenous Australia and among our closest neighbours the most salient relationship a boy has is with his mother's brother, rather than his biological father. The point being that this supposed natural and sacred fatherhood business is more cultural than it is biological. Similar arguments can be made with respect to motherhood.

I rather like the apocryphal African proverb that says that it takes a whole village to raise a child. What children need is food, shelter, love, security and education. The gender, sexuality or biological relatedness of who actually provides those necessities are peripheral to those needs.

yes it takes a whole village to raise a child. that doesn't mean that that everybody in the village will at one time or another breast feed the child, bathe the child, kiss the child, change the child etc etc. that intimacy should be between the child and his biological parents... if they are not there for whatever reason then the guardian of appropriate gender should fill that roll. A little girl shouldn't have to talk about her privates to her 2 dads. A boy should not have to learn about his role as a male from his 2 mums alone.

Same sex adoption is a selfish unnatural and ultimately deviant concept which should not be allowed to bear fruit (excuse the pun) in any society.

CJMorgan, what are you suggesting? That we should we take the tribal behaviour of an African tribe as our guide?

What has that got to do with the issue of gays and lesbians acquiring or having children and the effect of that on innocent children?

What is largely forgotten in this 'discussion' are the rights of the children in same-sex relationships. Who will protect them from the negative effects of being brought up in a same-sex relationship? How do you think a child in a same-sex relationship feels when they go to school and discover that all their friends have a Mum and a Dad? Given that children learn via imitation, how do they sort out a married relationship where two men or two women are providing the role models?

To ignore nature is to ask for trouble!

David G all you are saying, is that things should only be the way you think they should be. Life is a journey and full of diversities, and positive contributions to the social fabric of society. To deny this is so, is living a blinkered and insulated life.
A recent report on children being brought up by same sex couples.
www.sciencecentric.com/news/10090142-children-raised-by-gay-couples-show-good-progress-through-school.html

David G, and Bach too who also said 'unnatural'.

Gay Penguins.

Gay Penguins exist in nature.

Gay Penguins Adopt orphaned and abandoned chicks.

Gay Penguins Naturally Adopt.

Gay Adoption is Natural.

Gay Penguins = you are wrong.

If you have a problem with this then take it up with whatever power or force or law of nature that made Gay Penguins and proved you wrong!
(Hint: If your religious then your God/s made Gay Penguins! If an Evolutionist then look up Kin Selection and see how Gay Penguins evolved as an advantage to Penguin-kind!)

Gay Penguins David and Bach, Gay Penguins! And again, they are not the only animal which has same-sex adoption of orphans, it's found in other animals too!

So the 'unnatural' argument is refuted. Broken, ended, shattered, demolished, shown to be untrue. Rendered a pathetic joke by the many non-reproducing child raisers from nature like Ants Bees Wasps and Termites as well as the many same-sex-couple adopting of orphans amongst many birds and mammals.

Gay Penguins are Natural David and Bach. Gay is natural David. Gay Adoption is Natural David. Maybe you need to learn more about nature?

I read a report that long-term research has shown nearly 50% of galahs to be homosexual. Gay galahs form lifelong pairs and are accepted naturally as a part of the flock. Sometimes, when I read the idiocy of so many humans bleating about "deviant" or "sinful" gays, I think I'd rather be a galah. Pink forever!

Being homosexual does not preclude you from loving, caring, or being a responsible parent. The law cannot take children from their natural parents because they are homosexual, nor should they give guardianship of others children to homosexuals.

Kipp you can proffer 1000 reports about kids coping well in a same sex relationship, but it does not alter the fact that the child will have to explain or hide the make up of their family as a pre cursor all their lives. The psychological effect of the taunts and alienation by their peers will rob the potential of the Childs character; it has robbed many adults who suffered bullying and isolation during their school years for a lot less in social terms.

Those who would bequeath this social burden on an orphan child are doing the child no favours, and at the base of it the adult is fulfilling a want of theirs, at the cost of the Childs psychological future. I am not saying that all children from such relationships are emotionally impaired, but a percentage is. I rationalise it as I do the death penalty, if one innocent dies the cost is too much, if one child suffers the cost of the adult’s freedom to adopt is too much.

Tilly J asks:

I don't understand why people are against the love of two people?

Welllll -let me put you 'straight'

We have NOTHing against 2 people loving each other. Zero..

The issue is:

a) What KIND of 'love'
b) Whether 'that' kind of 'love' is appropriate for an innocent child to be exposed to.

Any child grows up knowing that 'babies' come from a mummy and a daddy... for that poor victimized child to have '2 daddies' or 2 mummies thrust upon him/her without any choice in the matter is abuse of the most heinous kind.

On the one hand they know "I came into the world from a mummy and a daddy"..but then the look at "But how come I've got 2 daddies and why do they sleep together and kiss each other like boys and girls do?"

It's immoral, it's nefarious, it's disgusting and if you want to get theological it's an abomination before God.

I don't think this kind of issue will be solved by persuasion.. it will be the rubber meets the road of gut wrenching politics.

CJ Morgan:>> in my experience as a former anthropologist the supposedly "natural" nuclear family is a relatively recent invention. In many cultures there are numerous people besides their biological parents that children call "father" or "mother", or with whom they have a defined equivalent relationship to what most Westerners would regard as parent-child kinship. Indeed, anthropological literature is full of it.<<

CJ and as a former anthropologist you would understand that the social morays of any society is particular to that society and the times. We are in the nuke family era mum, dad, two kids, the concept is alien to our society regardless of historic societal morays, don't you think.

Bayne and Crabsy, at least CJMorgan only referred to an African tribe as our guide. Your mention of penguins and galahs takes the silliness even further.

The bodies of 93% of females and males are designed by nature to fit together for the purpose of procreation and child rearing. The sexual activities of gays and lesbians are not normal and do not accord with either natural functions or procreation or child rearing.

End of story.

David G and sonofgloin, my point is that there is nothing "natural" about human family structures, as you claimed. I think that's also what Bayne and crabsy were getting at. Your perception that the nuclear family is "natural" is merely a product of your socialisation. As I've pointed out, there are already various non-nuclear family structures in Australian society, and it seems to me that those who are so upset about gay people having kids are really conscripting kids to what is essentially a homophobic cause.

I wouldn't have thought that you guys were sympathetic to this kind of homophobic bulldust:

<< It's immoral, it's nefarious, it's disgusting and if you want to get theological it's an abomination before God. >>

However, you're not as far away from that kind of nonsense as you think. What is it about gay parents that really worries you? Be honest now.

CJMorgan, homophobic is being tossed around like anti-Semitic is. It is a term that is used to denigrate anyone who dares to question the lifestyles of gays and lesbians.

My interest is not in gays and lesbians but in the children they want to involve themselves with because they think that having children legitimizes them and their unnatural relationships in the eyes of society. It is a totally irrational concept.

Let gays cavort together, live together, do what they want, who cares? Certainly not me.

But why can't they leave kids out of it, let them have a real Mum and a Dad like most kids have?

News headline:
Homosexuality among Penguins identified.
On the strength of reliable research amongst experts on the sexual behaviour of penguins, Australian parliament passed a bill in the house of representatives in Canberra today allowing Homosexuals the same rights to adoption and marriage as heterosexuals in Australia.
In an exclusive interview outside parliament today, Mr Blogs , a leading gay rights activist claimed the win as a great achievement and another step towards equal rights for gay and lesbians in our community, and he supported scientific research into the sexual habits of the animal kingdom and its equation of legitimacy to human behaviour outside current acceptable limits set by society at present.

Mr Blogs suggested dogs as the next example that the lobby may investigate as helpful in achieving further aims of the homosexual lobby. He noted dog breeders have long been aware of the benefits of mating bitches with their sons and fathers in order to
identify “inbreeding coefficients” to better enforce predispositions of prodigy. But he was quick to point out that research had not yet explained why the male canine often exhibited a desire to mate with human legs (usually in public), and suggested this annoying trend to be a negative in their argument for equality at the moment.

David, it's not just birds, gay sex and gay relationships are found in a huge amount of the animal world including the Bonobo which is geneticly almost the same as a human being, and amongst the Bonobos there's lots of gay sex. Maybe you didn't realise sex is naturally for more than procreation? Your appear mightily misinformed about nature and biology!

How can gay sex be unnatural when its found aplenty in nature? When one of the animals most close to humans has especially high levels of homosexuality?

You don't know enough about nature to base your argument on it. Go watch some nature documentaries about Bonobos and let me know what you discover about nature.

And then there's Australias Indiginous Same-Sex and Transgender Traditions, those of our neighbours in Polynesia,
Southern Asia, Central Asia, Mesopotamia, Africa, Europe, South and North America... From the Sistagirls of the Tiwi Islands of Australia to the Fa'afafine of Samoa to the Two-spirits of North America to Classical Greece and the Scythian Tribes, the Shamanic traditions of Northern Europe and Siberia.. in nearly every culture on earth through most of human history there was positive Gay and Transgender Traditions. Alexander the Great who conquered much of the world is believed to have been bisexual. It was mainly British Colonial Law that spread anti-gay laws and attitudes over much of the world and thats very recent times indeed.

Oh and with about 10% (and quite likely much more) of children being Gay Lesbian Bisexual Transgender and/or Intersex don't those kids logicly need good role models who are Gay Lesbian Bisexual Transgender and/or Intersex? How can hetero cisgender parents be good role models to Gay and/or Transgender children? What about the rights of those children? By your reasoning we should take those kids away from straight parents! Take 10% of all children from their parents? Really? Or maybe any loving caring responsible parent/s can raise kids of any sort Gay or Hetero, Transgender or Cisgender.

Biology, History, Logic.

David G, homosexuality is as 'natural' to homosexuals as heterosexuality is 'natural' to you and me. That's the way they 'naturally' are. It's not a 'lifestyle choice', nor is homosexuality immoral, nefarious, disgusting or an abomination.

People who think that way about homosexuals are by definition homophobic, and I'm suggesting that is also the basis for your objection to gay people adopting kids.

Gay sex is neither natural nor beneficial. Irrespective on whether people or animals enjoy it still isn't part of the natural procreation process.

Instead of looking at this from a selfish "this is what we want and it's our right to claim it" point of view, let's look at it from a societal pint of view:
• First of all, gays cannot have a child together, as such they can never and will never BOTH be the child's natural parents. God didn't make it that way.
STRIKE 1

• There is a massively overwhelming number of studies that show that the best environment for children is with a mum and a dad.
STRIKE 2

• Adoption agencies have plenty of heterosexual parents to choose from when placing children so there is no need to favour a gay parental situation - claiming that they 'pick the best parents' and then favour gay couples is just total disregard for the reality of the long-term needs of a child in favour of an ideological point - there are a many more heterosexual parent to choose from and the likelihood of finding better situations is in favour of hetereosexual parents.
STRIKE 3

So in the interests of children (BEST for the child, not gay activism) we should be
(a) placing adoptable children with heterosexual parents which is, hands down, the BEST for the child.
(b) acknowledging the RIGHT of every child to have a mum and a dad by only allowing hetereosexual parents to have children

hahhahhaha.. Bayne MacGregor are you trying to legitimise homosexuality because a minute number penguins apparently have homosexual tendencies? I had a dog that had sex with my basketball... doesn't make it right buddy

Bach, way to misunderstand or worse misrepresent my argument. The myriad of gay animals in nature prove its natural (see the work of Joan Roughgarden and others on animal sexuality). Homosexuality is legitimate because its not intrinsicly Unethical and thus within peoples basic human rights (see the yogyakarta principles).

gpenglase
All your points are wrong as I will now show.

Gay sex happens in nature regularly. Therefore it is natural. You cannot argue otherwise without redefining nature itself as unnatural! If you want to learn the value of Gay Sex amongst animals i suggest learning about the Bonobo and other animals with lots of gay sex, as for it's human value try learning about that too. Ask youself why did God make Gay animals? Why does God make Eunuchs who Jesus said are 'Born That Way'? (It's in Mathew).

1. It doesn't matter that Gays can't make babies with other gays, they still often have kids with women, they still raise kids every day, they can still look after abandoned and orphaned kids. Why did God Make Gay Animals which Adopt orphaned babies unless thats what God made Gays for? And not every religion in Australia, not every christian church even, is anti-gay! So thats strike one for you.

2. Where are the Comparative Studies that compare Gay Parents to Hetero Ones? Oh wait, i'm the one that gave those links and they say Gays are Equal to Hetero's as quality Parents! Strike 2 for you.

3. Gay parents already foster kids no hetero ones want! But you are denying those kids the right to the advantages of being adopted by the couple that look after them! Your claim ignores this and so your argument is invalid! Strike 3!

So in the interests of children (BEST for the child, not ANTI-gay activism) we should be
(a) placing adoptable children with loving caring parents of any sexuality which is, hands down, the BEST for the child.
(b) acknowledging the RIGHT of every child to have loving caring parents by ensuring children fostered by gay couples can be adopted by them

CJ Morgan:>>David G and sonofgloin, my point is that there is nothing "natural" about human family structures, as you claimed. It seems to me that those who are so upset about gay people having kids are really conscripting kids to what is essentially a homophobic cause.<<

CJ, these statements do not apply to me or the comments I posted. I commented on the stigma that the children do and will encounter from their peers, that is my objection, nothing more.

BACH;

If you read my satirical post three or four above your own, it effectively trashes the argument the homosexual lobby are using strongly here; that one which implies "if dogs do it,(at the moment its penguins), then homosexuals should have legal rights to those same activities".
The other argument centres on the behaviour of others, usually in foreign countries in Europe, which apparently by its nature legitimises any behaviour condoned globally as automatically acceptable in Australian society.

There are very tidy social arguments, as the author of this article points out admirably, why children should be protected from forced integration with homosexuality, as would happen if the homosexual lobby group have their way with proposed changes to adoption laws.

The real weak point in arguments against the relentless march of homosexuality, as it seeks to level every hill and mountain in its way to achieve social acceptance of the practices and beliefs of the group, is the subjective nature of those counter arguments.

The moral argument most often based on religious beliefs, is subjective. Also, opinion based on norms in society is also subjective. The tactic used by the homosexual lobby is to constantly attack these subjective beliefs as unfair to their minority view, and to have credibility of religious and social belief cast in the unfair light of bigotry, (which the moral argument is not I might add).

As experience shows, using the example of previous campaigns by another morally sick group the “legal prostitution lobby”, hammering the traditional subjective beliefs of society and subjecting them to objective arguments such as evidenced here in these posts, proves the most effective road to success of spreading this particular sickness of homosexuality.

The problem with social objections to homosexuality are generally moral based: Where the slimness of the objective argument of the moralists is built on physical and mental health issues almost entirely.

The legalisation of gay adoption is simple to recognise in law what presently exists. Family court will always rule in the best interests of the child. As the gay partner of a single parent is not recognised by the law the lack of legal recognition does not alter the outcome, but seriously extends the time and cost of resolving the issue.

There is a well defined justification to recognise existing relationships and to reduce the expenses to the commonwealth and taxpayer.

For those bigots that see this as a legitimisation of homosexuality, wake up and smell the roses, it exists, has done so at least for all recorded history.

This legislation does not grant same sex couples parity or advantage in adopting children where the agencies must still consider the environment of the home and society before allowing adoption.

sonofgloin, you said

<< We are in the nuke family era mum, dad, two kids, the concept is alien to our society regardless of historic societal morays, don't you think. >>

Which is why I pointed out that there's nothing 'natural' about the nuclear family - it's the most common type in our society at this particular point in history, but that is changing. While I have no doubt about your sincerity regarding adopted kids' welfare and protecting them from schoolyard taunts, that is no reason to stop gay parents adopting kids.

Reinforcing discriminatory structures is no way to deal with them. Following your logic, we wouldn't have Indigenous or migrant children in our schools, not to mention disabled kids. Think about it.

Diver Dan, your spurious satire is a Classic Logical Fallacy. A form manipulation to try and win an argument through deception.

For the penguins just prove the Natural Vs Unnatural argument, not the basis for the validity of same-sex adoption but disproves the false claim of 'unnatural' used to falsely invalidate it!

Then you say all the examples are European. Ignoring that i mentioned Samoa, our Neighbour and lets add Tonga and just about all of Indiginous Polynesia! Our region! And the Tiwi Islands which are Part Of Australia! And then the rest of Australias Indiginous Same Sex and Transgender traditions.. traditions which in our apology for our past policy of cultural genocide we have said sorry for trying to destroy!

Your claiming moral relativism ignores centuries of understanding following the Enlightenment which gave us the principles of universal human rights based on liberty and personal choice that stop only at the equality of other peoples equal rights. Gay people are just wanting their equal rights. A Fair Go for all Australians. These principles are all to be found in the bible (and other faiths texts too) Do Unto Others as you would have them Do Unto You. ie equal rights. Vex not a stranger nor oppress him for you were strangers in the land of Egypt. In other words don't apply your rules to people who are different to you as you wouldn't like them making you live their way! And it's said repeatedly.

Gay couples already raise foster kids Diver Dan! Why would you hurt those kids by denying them the advantages of being adopted by the people caring for them?

Oh and minority view? Polls show the majority of Australians support antidiscrimination legislation for Gays and Transgender people. Galaxy Poll: 85% total in favour 40% strongly in favour, only 4% strongly against! Same-Sex Marriage polled at 60% support! The Majority of Australia is pro-gay! In fact applying the polls on religious beliefs to those figures we learn that the majority of christians are pro-gay and the majority of pro-gay people are christians!

Bayne McGregor:

Nothing “veiled” about what I am saying at all. Values of decency live in tandem with values of honesty. My satire was aimed at the puerile arguments so often presented to prove the legitimacy of the putrid.

The “hysteron proteron” or “fate accompli” stance of the homosexual argument itself defies honesty with its borrowed tactics from the “unrestrained sex” set mentioned in my post, namely the legalised prostitution campaign that tore up established rule books and left society floundering in another layer of scum.

Why should decent law abiding and morally engaged citizens in our society, living normal, healthy and contributing lifestyles with moral values based on the norms of society, watch-on in muted wonderment, while those same expectations are subsumed by the opposing values of a strange minority, wreaking social and moral havoc?

Just maybe Bayne McGregor, this is the time in your life to adjust to your own lies.

It has been studied that people with extreme homophobia, have latent homosexual tendencies themselves!

A few years ago I was leading a tutorial for first year ethics students. There were two young men who identified as Christians.

The discussion turned to IVF. Both these young men declared that from their Christian perspective, IVF was an abomination, and IVF children weren't like "real children."

One of the students' assignments was a journal they had to keep throughout the semester on their thoughts and feelings about the course and ways in which it had affected their thinking and attitudes. I was marking the journal of a young woman who had always been quite reticent in tutorials. Her journal revealed that she was an IVF child. To hear herself describe as an abomination and not real, caused her heart break and anguish. She almost left the university, but because she had courage she stuck the semester out, and kept silent, in the company of these two bigots.

The point of this little story is that every time you denigrate and abuse gay couples who are fostering children you are denigrating and abusing and marginalising those children. Every time you refuse adoption rights to gay couples, you are also marginalising and abusing those children.

Why should anybody give a toss about your miserable psychopathological animosity towards same sex couples, when there are far more important things to think about such as what your unaccepting attitudes will do to the children. Not because they're adopted by gays, but because you people can't cope with them being fostered by gays for your own unexamined and probably deeply unconscious repressed and denied reasons.

YOU people are the problem and YOU people are causing the problems for the children. Not their gay parents.

Mother of god. What century am I in?

Briar Rose, I don't know which century you're in! Sorry.

All I know is that, reading all these comments, it seems that I have been wrong about homosexuality all these years. It seems that most of the animals, birds, monkeys, etc, are homosexual.

It seems that all this time I have been in a minority and didn't know it. Silly me. I should sue my parents who told me having sex with other men was wrong but I can't because they are both dead.

I wonder how long it will be before we read about studies that show homosexuals make better parents than those involved in heterosexual relationships. Then next cab off the rank will be fathers who commit incest with their children. Studies will show that their children are more sexually secure, more liberated.

And then come the pedophiles and the transvestites...

Stop the world. I want to get off!

P.S. Just one question. If most creatures are inclined towards homosexuality, how come most forms of life are still progressing along the evolutionary track? Two males plus two females don't make four, I'm afraid.

Some of the extravagant claims made on this thread are obviously untrue.

CJ Morgan:>> Reinforcing discriminatory structures is no way to deal with them. Following your logic, we wouldn't have Indigenous or migrant children in our schools, not to mention disabled kids. Think about it.<<

CJ you are of course right in what you say, but IMO it does not transfer in this instance. The perception of homosexuality will always remain as alien while we procreate in the manner we do. I do not think that way nor do you, but the overwhelming majority of society does. When we all come from test tubes and gestation cribs then there may be a chance that mankind places no bias on sexuality.

Until then the child must explain their situation every time their family is discussed for the first time and every time another kid visits. I know there will be unbiased exceptions to this but the percentage is the same as those who accept sexuality implies nothing, very small.

Consider your formative years and your peers. Kids who had acne, soft natured kids, ugly kids, red headed kids, weak kids, all these young characters were formed with these "huge" psychological burdens to carry. As adults we know it is a passing phase but kids suicide over these things everyday and we sit back and try to understand how they could put such value in things that we know will pass. As adults we can isolate ourselves from our peers, but school kids go to the psychological stomping grounds every day, then they socialise in it and some take their lives because of it.

The percentage of homosexuals will not change SO they will always carry the stigma of minority and alien in our society and the kids will be taunted and identified as the kid with the homosexual parents Sad and wrong but a fact and I would not give up one child for a social experiment and an adults social self gratification.

CJ we will have to agree to disagree on this one.

One thing that is said over and over again in these posts is that there's something unnatural about homosexuality because we procreate heterosexually. I can't see what one thing has to do with the other.

Such a bizarre statement has to be based on the even more bizarre premise that sexual love is for procreation only.

All those times you do it and don't make a baby, what are they about? Are they perversions?

Is masturbation a perversion as well?
No, please nobody answer that. It's rhetorical.

sonofgloin,how are you on mixed race marriage?

Many of those same concerns applied to kids with mixed race parents at one point. No doubt some kid's went through hell from bigot's (and the children of bigot's).

R0bert

R0bert:>> sonofgloin,how are you on mixed race marriage?<<

CJ asked me a similar question and as I said to him there is no correlation. With racism you must first identify what the objection is before you can address it. There are a myriad of them, you feel you are "better" than another evolutionally or culturally, you are jealous of what you perceive the group to have, you feel the group is encroaching on the society you evolved in, you are threatened by them, and the list goes on.

With homosexuals you can not apply any of the above yet society holds a deep prejudice and open ended imagination regarding the homosexual lifestyle. Homophobic individuals have a psychological barrier to acceptance instilled by the society they grew in and the moral religious teachings they grew up with. There will always be grass roots opposition and a social experiment using children is obscene.

Those of you, who are pro same sex adoption, give your children up to two men to raise before you unceremoniously give up some waif that has been abandoned.

Briar Rose.

I do not wish to trade blows here Briar Rose, however, you trailing remark prompts a response. quote in part:
“You people are the problem and You people are causing the problem for the children”.

Actually,you stand accused of intellectual blindness with such remarks and face the charge of abject stupidity. It is my solemn duty to emphasize to you the obvious reality in this debate: It is homosexuals adopting children who are the problem.

It is homosexuals who are the threat to the welfare of the child. It is homosexuals raising the dust on the issue of adoption who are the problem. It is homosexuals exercising a lopsided political power base who rob the community of precious debating time in our parliaments.

It is time which should otherwise be devoted to more pressing issues which should include discussion on the prevalence of poverty and homelessness in communities, which should include discussion on subjects such as drug abuse and youth hopelessness in our communities and otherwise how a parliament could best help in socially positive ways, a community as a collective, encompassing the total gambit of social issues. Enough stupidity is enough. The advances of the homosexual power trippers must end.

But not so anything half so magnanimous can be anticipated; So, alas, with a polished zeal for pressing narrow focused selfish agendas and a constellation of persecution complexes aimed at an overly tolerant and forgiving community which once exhibited a moral connection to a noble past, this selfish little band of homosexual sociopathic brigands has chosen to push a sick agenda of games, aptly described as Mummies and Daddies, through to a conclusion via a highway of wasted time and wasted resources.

<< CJ we will have to agree to disagree on this one >>

Thanks for the civil response, but why do you think homophobia is any more entrenched in our society than racism or discrimination against people with disabilities? When I was a kid open homosexuality was still illegal, racist taunts were normal and disabled kids were institutionalised.

We've come a long way since those unenlightened times, but racism still persists in a minority, disabled people are still fighting for equality, and a minority of people still display homophobic attitudes towards gay people. That doesn't mean that people's rights should be diminished because some bigot is going to give them or their kids a hard time.

It's not an "experiment". It's called social justice - admittedly an unpopular concept among the bigoted minority.

<< Those of you, who are pro same sex adoption, give your children up to two men to raise before you unceremoniously give up some waif that has been abandoned. >>

That's just silly, and you know it.

Funny, here was me thinking that the organ which had the biggest impact on your parenting abilities was the one betwixt your ears, but apparently it's the one betwixt your legs.

Isn't it about time society had the maturity to judge parents-to-be not on the nature of the genitals, but on the content of their character? And why are the bigots so obsessed with other people's genitals anyway? Crikey, guys, there's more to life than sex!

No Riz that's rather a simplistic and unrealistic point to make. What's between your legs is part of who you are and what your role is in society. If that is the case why don't we all get muted, grow kids in labs and take drugs as a substitute to the sensual part of sex.

You're right tho, there is much more to life than sex. A weird thing for you to say as a supporter of homosexual adoption rights tho since their sex is only about pleasure and not procreation.

Sonofgolin - you write: "Those of you, who are pro same sex adoption, give your children up to two men to raise before you unceremoniously give up some waif that has been abandoned."

I have homosexual friends whom I would have asked to raise my sons had I encountered a situation in which I couldn't do that myself.

These men are intelligent, educated, travelled, interesting, ethical and loving human beings. They play a valuable role in my family.

How many homosexuals do you know?

Diver Dan - how many homosexuals do you know?

Because once you know somebody stupid things like race and colour and sexual preference tend not to count for much when you are face to face with a human being with hopes and fears and wishes just like yours.

So live dangerously. Think of gays as human beings first.

bach - if you think gay sex is all about pleasure and not procreation, what do you think of straights who have sex and don't procreate? Are they as bad as gays in your moral universe?

And what about all the straights who continue to have sex after they've finished making babies, just for the fun of it?

Are they bad too?

This keeps coming up in this forum, doesn't it? This linking of sex with procreation, as if the procreation part makes the sex legal.

Some guilty hang up about just doing it for fun? Is that why you hate gays? Cos they do it just for fun?

Diver Dan,
You argued that the penguin argument was the basis for gay rights when it was no such thing. That is a logical fallacy. Recognised since ancient times as to deceive, to lie in argument. The penguin argument addressed the false incorrect disproven 'unnatural' argument.

Perhaps you were never taught about logical fallacies? Something hopefully soon to be fixed in our schools with Ethics classes. In which case while unintentional fallacy remains fallacy your character is not impuned only your teachers skill and/or the curiculum. But for someone complaining about 'puerile' arguments i'd have expected then to be able to avoid such basic logical fallacies. Some reading might be in order?

You suggest the 'norms of society' are any measure of morality? What an immoral argument! You just defended not only racism and sexism you also defended slavery and rape and torture as moral because at times they were the norms of society! But they were all Unethical and people using the Ethics arguments of the Enlightenment cast out such evils and injustices branding them immoral with reasons WHY they were immoral defeating those who said they were moral based on the NORMS of society! The same Ethical Principles of the Enlightenment show that Gays are not immoral!

Dan you are hundreds of years behind on the subject of Morality! Better do some remedial reading for sure!

David G
Just cause all males in some entire species are bisexual doesn't stop them mating with females in mating season.. they just mate with males the rest of the time. While in other species same-sex couples are a minority who raise orphaned and abandoned babies. In other species only a tiny number of the animals reproduce and they are very careful to only have a few reproducers born amongst the millions of sterile babies they have. Do you know nothing of Ants for example? Males mate and die. Queens reproduce, the rest, the vast majority, are all sterile females that raise the babies do the digging and the foraging and the fighting. Your knowledge of biology is sorely lacking but there are nooks out there you can read to catch up.

Now go watch a documentary on Bonobos, our nearest Ape relatives, and see what kind of sex they have.

Songofgloin
In many parts of the world in many times of history Gay and Transgender people were accepted. In Scythia and parts of Greece Transgender people were Priestesses! In ancient Greece not only was Alexander the Great Bisexual and the Spartans Bisexual but there was an entire army formed of Gay Couples reknowned for their bravery! In our Neighbouring country Tonga a few years ago a Transgender person officiated over the royal marriage! Amongst the Native Americans Gay and Transgender people were considered two-spirit people respected for their wisdom and consulted by some of the greatest of warriors and chiefs! It only took a generation or two to neatly destroy Australian Aboriginal Gay and Transgender acceptance and traditions.

Already the majority in Australia are pro-gay as shown by the Galaxy polls that have 60% in favour of same-sex marriage. Things are changing (back to traditional Gay acceptance). The evidence is before your eyes.

I think once the connection between sex and procreation is broken then sex seizes to be a full expression of love between to people and is degenerated to an act of lust to only satisfy the senses. In this society sex has become to a great extent nothing more but lust and perversion. Something people do to try and fill a void in their life which can't be filled by sex and in many instances results in adverse realities and feelings of altered self worth and disillusioned perceptions of other peoples worth.

Now to state that I hate homosexuals is an idiotic, deplorable and dangerous accusation and assumption to make. I'm a Catholic and am therefor commanded to love each and every person without judgment or condition because we recognise that all us humans are sinners and only God judges- not us. I do have homosexual friends who i care about very much.. but am strongly opposed to their way of life for obvious reasons.

Jesus saved a prostitute from being stoned to death by telling the accusers "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone" John 8:7
He then then told the woman to go and sin no more.

In addition and to answer your first question I believe that if a married couple were open to conceive yet for some reason or other be it physiological/biological or god knows, could not then it is of no fault of their own. However of a person engaging in unnatural sex such as homosexual sex is simply in it for their own pleasure and that is wrong. Here's a question for you Briar Rose: how do you feel about Swingers clubs?

bach: << I think once the connection between sex and procreation is broken then sex seizes to be a full expression of love between to people and is degenerated to an act of lust to only satisfy the senses. In this society sex has become to a great extent nothing more but lust and perversion. >>

While you're entitled to your beliefs, what gives you the right in a secular society to attempt to impose your prudish beliefs on others, i.e. homosexual people? Anybody who uses their Christian morality to try and influence the law is no different to those misguided Muslims who would like to impose Sharia law on the rest of us.

I'm heterosexual, and I stopped having sex for the purpose of procreation about 20 years ago, but I still have what most people would regard as a healthy sex life with my partner - to whom I'm not married (shock! horror!). I find your holier-than-thou attitude far more offensive than the notion of a committed gay couple adopting a child.

You need to realise that your attitude to sex is very much a minority one in Australian society, and in a democracy you have no right to to try and impose it on the rest of us.

Bach,

"I think once the connection between sex and procreation is broken then sex seizes to be a full expression of love between to people"

So I guess that using contraceptive also damns you to hell. I assume that you never use such dirty devices?

CJ Morgan i'm not here to enforce my views on you buddy... and i don't really care about your sex life. My point of separating sex from the possibility of conception remains. As i stated earlier it limits the expression of love that two married people should have towards each other. The fact that you're not married to a person you've been with for 20 years may indicate that you never had enough love or respect for her to offer the rest of your life to her. You may walk out on her tomorrow or she may do the same. You may both have had other people in your lives at the same time. It's a bit sick to me and yes you're quite right i am a bit sickened by it.

Bach, what a bizarre outlook you have, on the meaning of love between two people.
As what you are saying, is that love only applies when two people are breeding, when that ceases, so does their love for each other if they dare have sex.
By chance do you own a puppy farm!

bach, your odd views on sex are your own opinion. Fair enough, but to argue that those who don't share it should be subject to your prudish morality - as you do with respect to gay adoption - is rather arrogant.

Your conjecture about my relationship is both false and spiteful. While I'm not "sickened" by your sanctimonous bile, you really are no advertisement for your faith.

No wonder people are deserting your version of Christianity in droves.

Within the heterosexual communities, and when I say communities I mean that amongst this disposition, there are a large variety of “styles” of having sex…S&M, conventional missionary, etc. But amongst the heterosexuals, in my entire life (I’m in my 50’s) I’ve never had someone come upon to me and say, “I do it missionary style”, or “I’m into S&M, what about you?”, etc. In other words, people do not advertise their sexual past-time. Secondly, they do not identify themselves by their sexual orientation, but by their name or profession. So what sort of person needs to let everyone know their sexual orientation, let alone that they then need to define themselves by it? The emotionally immature ones, is who. And I include the heterosexuals too.

I’ve lost count of how many gays must make mention of the fact that they’re gay while they’re introducing themselves to me. Yet I’ve never had a heterosexual introduce themselves to me as a heterosexual. The immature heterosexuals have other ways of informing you of their immaturity.

Admittedly, this is my experience with the more flamboyantly natured gays & lesbians. I’ve also met and worked with people that I would never guess were gay, but only found out by conversation over a long period of time and getting to know them, for they had no need to advertise and be flamboyant in such an immature way, nor did they have the need to identify themselves by their sexuality. I’m not including those that were somewhat fearful to disclose, for of course, those too I have met.

TBC...

Now here’s the conundrum for average straight guy…he doesn’t know how many mature gays he meets, as in being emotionally mature, they have no need of such flamboyant conduct. But if what is noticed is the flamboyant and immature behaviors of SOME gays, then what is it that you find yourself associating to them? Immature sexual flamboyance, and for most people, that would not be a suggestion of good role-modelling as a parental figure. And rightly so, it’s not. But I hasten to add, that emotionally immature heterosexuals are not good role-models for parenting either, but they get away with it, for they don’t have to adopt from being able to procreate. I’m not saying that it’s right, I’m saying that’s just the way it is, by nature of what we’re talking about.

So in effect, I’m saying give the “homophobe” a break. Many can’t identify what it is that makes them uncomfortable, and so identify what is obvious…the sexual orientation. But I truly believe most don’t recognize that they are only noticing the emotionally immature gays, extrapolating that as the norm for the entire gay community, when that is clearly not the case.

As an aside, the word “homophobe” is not a technical term but a slang term. It cannot mean the fear of gays, for technically, it must mean the fear of Mankind, if you break the word down to its Latin roots. It’s the addition of the suffix “-phobe” to an abbreviation of the word "homosexual", and I would guess, originally coined by a gay. The people that are predominately termed “homophobes” are NOT fearful of gays, but in fact the opposite could well be argued, but are repulsed by either the idea of the sexual activity or the flamboyant behaviour, or both, and some, react to it in their own immature manner with derogatory comments, or worse.

TBC...

So in conclusion, what I’d like to say is that in the gay community there are many poor examples of parental role models easily identified, but I hasten to add that that is not representative of the entire gay community. Ergo, it’s absolutely fine for there to be gay couples in parenting roles. But there are many examples amongst the gay community AND the hetero community, that just shouldn’t be allowed to adopt kids.

That’s the difficulty of the issue….no-one knows what goes on behind closed doors, and the miscreants of society were born from “conventional” couples, so let’s face it, the gay and lesbian community couldn’t do any worse. Personally, I don’t give a rat’s what a person does with their sexual organs, so long as minors aren’t involved. And to be homosexual, is totally different to being a paedophile. Adoption is about emotionally mature, loving couples, being able to provide a nurturing environment. So IMO, so long as you’re not a paedophile, and are emotionally mature and able to provide such an environment, then your sexual orientation is of no relevance.

Bach,
Exodus 22:21 You shall neither vex a stranger, nor oppress him: for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.

Your religious text forbids you from applying your morality to those who do not belong to your way of life. Remember in biblical times homosexuality was acceptable amongst many of Israels neighbours and regional powers in places like Athens, Sparta, Rome, Egypt, Babylon and much more. Yet God said not to vex or oppress people who live their lives differently which quite literally must have included Gay and Bisexual and Transgender people because that's how many of Israels neighbours were! Please start following your bible.

Mathew 7:12 Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law of the prophets.

Jesus told you not to oppose Gay peoples relationships and rights unless you would want your own taken away from you. Please start following the teachings of Jesus.

See folks this is why most christians are pro-gay. Because the bible actually tells them not to oppress the rights of others and to treat them fairly even if they eat pork and shrimp (also abominations in leviticus! No bacon-eater has the right to condemn gays based on old-testament rules!). The bible gives rules to live by that can completely fit in with a secular multi-cultural multi-faith gay-accepting society. These rules, treating others as equals and being nice to them as you want them to be nice to you is called Reciprocal Ethics and was one of the founding principles of Human Rights and centuries ago!

MindlessCruelty,

Your analysis of the term homophobe is incorrect. Many words in english are totally different from their source. Terrific means really good? Comes from the word Terror! Awful means really bad? It comes from Full of Awe! Thing is an object? Actually it started as a parliament!

Some technical terms
Photophobia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photophobia "Photophobia is a symptom of excessive sensitivity to light and the aversion to sunlight or well-lit places. In ordinary medical terms photophobia is not a morbid fear or phobia, but an experience of discomfort or pain to the eyes due to light exposure."

Hydrophobia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrophobia_%28disambiguation%29
Hydrophobia or hydrophobe may refer to:

* Rabies, especially a set of symptoms of the later stages of an infection, in which the victim has difficulty swallowing, shows panic when presented with liquids to drink, and cannot quench his or her thirst.
* Phobia of water (this is mainly colloquial, phobia of water is usually called aquaphobia, see below, to differentiate it from rabies.)
* Aquaphobia, a morbid fear of water, or of swimming.
* Hydrophobe, a term used in chemistry to describe chemical "aversions" of a molecule or part of a molecule

Xenophobia: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/xenophobia
an unreasonable fear or hatred of foreigners or strangers or of that which is foreign or strange

the word homophobia came from xenophobia. Note irrational hatred. Of course as 83% of anti-gay people tested were sexually aroused by homoerotic images it should be defined often as a form of fear of and hatred of those who remind them of the hated/repressed part of themselves.

Oh and the flagrant identification of some gay people? Well thats usually a way they overcome their own homophobia, by not being ashamed but proud of being what they are. Of course heterosexuality is everywhere in every tv-show magazine billboard and childrens fairy tale book all pushing a commonality as instead a universality. When gays are as visible as heteros it often looks more out of place to someone used to their invisibility. As for S&M etc and openess about sexuality you don't know the heterosexuals i do. Maybe it's an age thing?

briar rose:>> How many homosexuals do you know?<<

From my first day to 8 years old I lived five minutes from Taylor Square (Oxford Street Sydney). Then from 12 through to 20 I again lived back at 5 minutes from Taylor Square. Then I moved to Strawberry Hills and then into the suburbs at thirty, I got sick of the city.

I will happily trade you experiences and interactions in the gay community if you want. I had an after school/ late shopping night/ Saturday morning gig at the Franklins Supermarket in Oxford street(the top one, not the one near Hyde Park, two back then of course) and the loading dock was shared by Cappricios one of the first gay clubs in Oxford street. Mal from Cappricios who did some cooking some cleaning some drag act and all the loading dock would try to "crack on to me" (I was a teen then, hence the crack on bit) at least twice a week. I knew all the gay business people back then and all the dirty laundry both personal and public. Sometimes I knew who killed who before the police did. If you lived there all the stuff that happens in the city to everyone else, happened just down the road for me.

I recall when the pubs in Oxford Street went from gunnies and blue collar to gay, I drank in them before gay and I drank in them after gay, I made friends in them before and I made friends in them after.

I grew up with the gay movement, they lived in my street. I have said nothing about homosexuals not being able to perform the parental role with the diligence and emotional support required, I just do not believe the prejudice will ebb. There are a finite number of homosexuals wanting to adopt children, so it will never be common, it will always be a singularity that brings issues to the child. That is my only concern

bach - you ask me what I think about "swingers' clubs?"

I don't think anything usually, but since you asked the question I've been forced to consider my ethical position.
But I need more information from you:
1. What exactly is it that they are swinging? Because if it's small people or animals then that's appalling and I can't go along with that.
2. If they are swinging clubs around their heads, or stock whips or any other inanimate object, that' all right, provided they aren't aiming them at any sentient beings.

Like we used to say to our kids, it's all good fun till someone loses an eye.

You seem quite one-eyed in your take on sexual love and its expression. Did you lose an eye through swinging too much?

Sonofgloin - Thank you for replying so fully to my question.

I was really interested in your reply, it must have been fascinating to live through such huge and controversial changes in the life of the city.

I don't agree with your conclusion, though, that we shouldn't allow gay adoption because the children involved will always be singled out for prejudice.

The majority of such children are already in foster care relationships with gay couples, and so are already and will continue to have to deal with what is thrown at them in the playground. Adopting them will give them a legal security equal to that of other children, and this has to be better for them. The same applies to children in situations where one partner is the biological parent.

I don't want children to have to suffer either, but I deeply feel that this suffering is caused not by them having gay parents, but by the bigotry of people who will not accept gays as parents. These people are not thinking of the children involved, they are thinking of their own prejudices. I don't think that colluding with those prejudices by preventing gay adoption is going to help the children.

I don't think much would have been achieved in the world if we'd been intimidated by bullying bigots.

I'm not sure what you mean by saying there's "a finite number of homosexuals wanting to adopt." There may always be a smaller number of gays wanting to adopt, but finite?

Again, thank you for that glimpse into the transformation of Taylor Square and surrounds. Maybe you should write about it, because a lot of people would be interested.

briar rose, given we come to a differing pov, and I have no argument about the moral legitimacy of gay adoption but RATHER the impact from society on TO the child, hopefully we will agree to disagree as I did with CJ.

No worries, Sonofgloin. Agree to disagree.

lol.. no i just wanted to get a better sense of where you stood on such obvious degenerate social behavious and if you had any moral conviction and the depth of which.

Being one eyed (or conservative) about the idea of of partner swapping is something I take as a compliment so thank you. I must admit that I am a little concerned that youre a parent tho and seem to like the idea of swingers clubs.

To all the individuals who were shocked by my statements concerning the link between love, sex and procreation I would just like to ask you to read John Paul II's 'Theology of the Body'.

Bach, the thoughts of JP2 are indeed important to some catholics, only some catholics and are virtually irrelevant to the rest of humanity. Many catholics still feel V2 a betrayel of catholicism, others found JP2's views on many issues the equivalent of the treatment of Copernicus and Gallileo. I've seen Catholics treating Intersex people as sinners and a threat to humanity because of the potential impact on body theology when Jesus himself in Mathew made clear that Intersex people are made that way by God Mathew 19:12 "For some are eunuchs because they were born that way" and the bible also has God saying that Eunachs will have a special place in the house of God!

The scientific evidence, which must be considered the direct observation of the literal word and acts of god, shows that the brains of Transgender and many Gay people are neurologicaly Intersex! Body Theology needs to take this into account or it is arguing against God! Now you might find interesting the arguments of Translators who find fault with the translation of the word Paul used that is said to mean Gay when they say it meant Male Prostitute not Gay! Totally changing Biblical New Testament views on homosexuality and putting Gays along with pig-meat and shellfish and cotton blend clothing into Christian Acceptability! Heck Eunuch in biblical times also was used for crossdressers and homosexuals! Not just castrated slaves and Intersex people!

But above all remember that most of the world is not Catholic and not Christian but a multi-faith nation with religious liberty. The bible itself says "vex not a stranger nor oppress him for you were strangers in the land of egypt" and "do unto others as you would have them do unto you". So Bach do you oppose the bible? Do you oppose the direct word of God written in his creation in genes and blood and nerves and XXY chromasomes and Androgen Insensitivity? Do you think that Catholics should be forbidden to adopt?

And it can start with dealling with the reality of Intersex people "born that way".

Songofgloin,

Bullying is a real problem but like terrorism the answer to stopping it is not to comply with the wishes of bullies.

For years in schools bullies were allowed to do what they wanted. Victims would be sent to be counselled as to how to fit in and allow the bully free reign. I know because i was one of those harassed at school.

The answer instead is Zero Tolerance of bullying. Most rapists and murderers were bullies. So the bully should be imediately put in counselling to prevent this. Most bullies are abused by their parents, so the parents of bullies should be imediately under investigation. That's not just to protect kids of Gay parents (who already do exist and always have and always will exist so we should adapt to that reality rather than live in denial of it) but to make our society a better place with lower crime and lower violence!

Gays were an accepted part of society, respected even, in many parts of the world including Australia up until British anti-Gay attitudes and laws were imposed! They can be so again. So it's irrational to believe that it is impossible for what has happened in history to happen again.

Fight bullying and harassment and the problem is solved. And aren't we supoossed to be fighting bullying and harassment anyway? Don't we have to do so to save the lives of kids bullied into suicide right now?

Songofgloin, what about the same-sex couples where one has biological children? Raised today by same-sex couples? Shouldn't the other partner be able to adopt the child? To secure the childs welfare if the biological parent dies?

Bach,

Reading a theological article on the body by a sexually repressed (possibly even homosexual) clergyman would be like reading a review of paintings by Hellen Keller.

Based on all the bile coming from the Christians, I would consider a lesbian couple home more "normal" than fundamentalists.

Shadow minister your allegations of Pope John Paul II are baseless, malicious, hurtful, and derogatory. Your attitude speaks multitudes of your narrow mindedness, biased nature and ignorance. You're a hypocrite and have much to learn.

Bach,

Are you suggesting that JP2 was sexually active?

Secondly I did not allege (see a dictionary) he was gay, I only alluded to the possibility, and given the high proportion of homosexuals in the priesthood, (and paedophiles) the probability is significant.

PS you left out a few insults. I guess you have spittle mixed with the white out on your screen.

bach: all those catholic priests who sexually abuse children - do you think they believe in the link between love, sex and procreation?

I think you have a lot of work to do in your own churchyards, before you can judge others' sexual behaviours

briar rose i'm not too sure if they even believe in God to do something like that. However pedophilia is not only limited to a very small minority of priests but also rabbis and other religious clergy from other faiths.

Something to keep in mind is that pedophilia in the general community happens magnitudes more frequently than from within the Catholic church. It is a very biased and uneducated statement to make Briar Rose. It does thought illustrate how you've thought this through/

Bach, any chance of a comment from your sponsor Bill Muelenburg, or does he only make sweeping statements, and avoids debate!

Bayne Macgregor, thanks for your thoughts and I agree with what you say, but as I said previously I do not believe this prejudice can be overcome given my experience of human nature always coming down to the base common denominator when choosing to exclude or deprive others. I do not like the idea of kids being targets for hatred. Sort out society, and then introduce gay adoption not the other way around.

"What's between your legs is part of who you are and what your role is in society." - bach

Sorry, I don't follow. Just how, exactly (preferably with diagrams), does one's anatomy determine the content of one's character? 'Coz I'm having a bit of trouble understanding the nexus 'twixt my physical form and my soul.

Bach, the difference is that the church covered up crimes they should have reported. The church moved priests around to other areas allowing them to abuse again. That makes the church an accessory to the crime. I don't condemn every Catholic or every priest, but there is guilt there in the policy of protection. Anyone who keeps secret child abuse and helps a child abuser escape justice is a criminal and partly responsible for the child abuse that otherwise could have been stopped if the abuser was turned into the police imediately and properly investigated. To try and escape the shame of having some pedophiles in their ranks church officials became guilty of contributing to child abuse and deserving the shame that has been heaped upon them. Only when it became public knowledge has the church changed its policies of protection.

Songofgloin, we both care about the kids and the prejudice. Thing is that there are gay kids at school and foster kids and biological kids and IVF kids of gay parents at school already. And these kids are harmed by the current adoption laws. Surely for their sake, and they will be the vast vast majority of those adopted, the laws should change? If more kids will be adopted by the same-sex couple looking after them already than not then surely the suffering Vs reduction of suffering measure should result in a conclusion in favour of this legislation?

Also change comes from people seeing and meeting and knowing personally people who are different. That's how prejudice is overcome. Having kids of gay parents taking the kid to school and picking them up at the end of the day and attending the PTA meetings could be whats needed to undo the prejudice. How else can we fix society than by having people being part of society?