I note that yesterday the 2nd of September the NSW lower house passed legislation allowing for Gay couples to adopt. I find this decision to be fundamentally wrong for two basic reasons.
http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/samesex-adoption-bill-passes-house-20100902-14rpt.html

1. The decision was based on discrimination against gay peoples by church based adoption agencies. I agree this is wrong but I cannot agree with any policies pertaining to children being based on anything except the best interests of the child even if it means discriminating against certain social groups.

2. By the sheer fact that one is gay the opportunity to have children is negated. Nature has an amazing way of making its decisions and I am confident that if we were all to have children then we would have evolved as hermaphrodites.

Yes I know that this opinion is somewhat old fashioned and surprises even myself, but as a single parent I see great deficiencies in the up bringing of my children by only the one sex. Despite all my efforts to have them spend time with their grandmother my girls suffer for not having a mum. They loose that special relationship that teaches them to be a mother or in the other case how to relate to men. I am concerned how this will impact their lives in the future when they become mums or even the decision to become a mum. Our parents are the only handbook on life we get and those learning experiences on relationships of many types should be protected for the child.
And please can the Christian lobby be intelligent and not carry on about evil gay’s and the such. This is not about being gay which I have no issue with this is about the child and what their needs are. I actually include adoption by singles as well. Obviously single parenting will always exist, but we must stop treating children like a right or pushing the idea that having a child is the only way to have a fulfilled life. This is a very narrow view of life and places an unfair burden on the child.

kids losing out again due to the selfishness of adults.

My first post and i must correct myself.
In point 1. it should say

"The decision was based on discrimination against gay peoples by adoption agencies".

Not church based. The new act was amended by Clover Moore to allow church based agencies to discriminate.

nairbe,
1. Anything can be justified if you use the 'best interests of children' argument. Parents should not be allowed to smoke, drink or allow their children to play computer games etc. the list is endless, where does it stop? You cannot control peoples behaviour and in many cases having honestly loving and stable (even if gay) parents would certainly be in the childs 'best interest'.

2. This is a weird argument. If Nature has a way of 'making decisions' of who and who should not be able to have children, then barren couples should also not be allowed to raise children. Ridiculous.

This issue is not about gay peoples 'right to have a child', it is about their rights to be considered as individuals and not be discriminated against purely on the basis of their sexuality, as if it's some sort of criminal activity.

By the way, stop angsting about any percieved 'deficiencies' in you raising your children. They are much more resilient than you think. As long as they are in a loving environment, they'll be ok.

churches are discriminating? is that because they are standing up once again for the rights of our most innocent?
Children have an earthly naturalistic right to a mum and dad... thank god that churches aren't swayed by the influence and general flavour of the times.
Thank the churches for once again in history standing up for the rights of children.

In all the carry on in this subject I have not seen this point made.

Picture yourself as the public servant who has to sign the paperwork
authorising the adoption by two male homosexuals of a young boy.

Would you give a thought that 20 years or so down the track you might
be sued by that boy for placing him such a dangerous situation ?

I agree with the point that to be in a same sex relationship negates the option to have children of that relationship. It is a natural conclusion, as the relationship of itself cannot produce a child. The only possibility is for a person of the opposite gender to be sexually involved. Does the child have the right to know its biological parents? Can the adopting mother have the right to discriminate against her child being placed in a gay couples relationship?

bach? you are being funny now are you not?
This year has been a dreadful one for the uncovering of Church's looking after the interests of children.
It is dreadfully true every year brings new storys of the horrors of child abuse and the covering up by?
Churches.
As I do not believe in any God, firmly think we should judge only in the interest of the kids.
I will look for other reasons not to let it happen.
Mostly the kids will be loved, not exposed to danger and I still am unsure we should let some heterosexuals have kids.
Yet if I was in NSW Parliament I truly do not know how I would vote.
I am unsure but willing to see the big picture.

Belly,
Your bias is showing. Churches have in their care millions of children; that several are abused by men and reported upon in the Media is not a balanced view of the reality. It is most unfortunate that most reported cases are with children of the same gender. Does that say somthing?

how can anyone in their right mind be in favour of 'gay adoption'?

A child needs stability and normality during the formative years. How can two mums or two dads provide this? Plus, just think about when the child goes to school. Won't the other kids laugh at him/her and make the situation even worse?

This is all just politically correct nonsense where minority agendae are given more importance than what is normal.

No one actually realizes there's no kids around that can actually be adopted. Chances are, the kids that might be adopted would mostly be from one of the partners having bred previously, or via IVF. It's just giving the second partner the chance to be the kid's legal guardian.

As a Christian, am I for or against it?. Well, the most important thing is that any kid has a stable and safe environment to grow and develop to the best of its potential. If a kid is given that then I reckon both people - in any form of couple - should be rewarded with God's greatest gift of all; the right to call the child theirs.

Let God do the judging, hypocrites.

I agree with StG. Most heterosexual couples wishing to adopt a child in this country must look to other countries to find children to adopt, as there are very few available in this country.

The chances of a gay male couple being able to adopt an unrelated child is almost nil.

So all this hysteria over gay adoption is actually about the partners of gay parents being able to adopt their partners child.

In actual fact, many children do find themselves in the situation of having a gay parent because their parent originally couldn't face up to the fact they were homosexual, and went ahead and had a family with a heterosexual partner.

Children are very resilient. If most kids can deal with the many relationship breakdowns, divorces, and step-parents amongst heterosexual parents, then most can handle gay parents.

Kids aren't born with the holier than thou attitude about people different from themselves.

They need homophobes and religious nutters in the form of adults to teach them hate, later in life.

I hate PC, how can something so wrong be called correct?
My bias Philo? a few children?
In schools and Church run institutions thousands of kids, even in this mornings news have been miss treated.
I understand my view, not yet set in stone, is not one that makes me popular, but only with a minority.
Yet based only on the Child, give me comfort in the promise the kids will Be loved respected and not indoctrinated into their adopted parents life style.
And without doubt some of them will be better of than kids of some heterosexuals who never should be able to have kids.
I want however to highlight SOME gays, minority views holders often do it, as do Christians, over use the term bias without understanding it proves bias,, but on their part .

This really deals with the few thousand children already cared for by gay parents, for whom one is the natural sole parent, and the other a defacto partner and parent of several years standing. This is simply legally recognising a de facto relationship.

Given the small number of children up for adoption in Aus the chances of gay parents getting an unknown child are still near zero and this argument is a complete furphy.

<< So all this hysteria over gay adoption is actually about the partners of gay parents being able to adopt their partners child. >>

Great posts from StG and suzeonline. You're right, of course. This hysteria being whipped up by the fundies and homophobes is really a confected excuse to try and stop gay people formally adopting their partners' kids. It's just a disingenuous way of putting the boot into gays by trotting out the good old "what about the children" line.

I hadn't really thought about that until reading about it here, so I guess these threads perform a more useful function than just providing a platform for homophobes after all.

I saw the obnoxious Fred Nile on TV last night babbling on about it. He deployed the slippery slope argument, claiming that this is "just another right" being claimed by homosexuals - next they'll be wanting to marry as well, like everybody else. Nile has no interest in the children, rather he is openly campaigning to maintain discrimination against gays and their kids.

Which is exactly what the godbotherers and other homophobes who have their knickers in a twist about this issue want too, apparently. Their days of legitimised bigotry are numbered, as evidenced by the successful passage of the NSW legislation.

In the case of one partner already having children from a hetrosexual relationship the other could not adopt unless the natural father was dead or had given up his total acess and legal rights to the child. In the case of property the other partner could "will" property to whomsoever he / she wills and is not dependent upon adoption.

Belly for your information: Children only exist as a result of a union between a man and a woman, never from persons of the same sex. Both a father and a mother are involved in the conception of a child. That Gay Priests have sex with boys will never result in a child, as evil as that practise is. Two gay priests or two gay men should never have the custody of children.

You spurious view that:" ..the Child .. not indoctrinated into their adopted parents life style." Children learn what adults practise and want to emulate such.

Philo,

How much gay porn would it take for you to 'become gay'?

Philo: << Children learn what adults practise and want to emulate such. >>

That's why heterosexual parents don't have homosexual kids, of course.

So CJ Morgan you mean to imply that children don't learn from and emulate what adults around them do? You can't be serious mate.

No bach. Just pointing out the silliness of Philo's inference (i.e. that children of gay couples will emulate their parents and become gay themselves).

Philo and Bach, are you serious? Of course children emulate adults, but I doubt there are too many adults out there (gay or not) showing their kiddies how and with whom to have sex, do you?

There are only very rare instances of gay parents having gay children.
The vast majority of gay people are born from heterosexual parents.
Many of these parents were god-fearing homophobes too.
How do you account for that?

Philo, paedophile Priests have had sex with female children too.
A paedophile is an adult who wants sex with children under 16.
A homosexual person is an adult who wants sex with someone of their own gender.
Only someone with severe homophobia would get the two terms mixed up.

In today's society people tend to make decisions
about marriage, divorce, abortion, child-rearing,
and the like, in terms of what they, personally
want - rather than in terms of traditional
moralities, obligations to kin, or the other
impersonal pressures that previous generations
unquestioningly accepted.

Pursuing their own vision of self-fulfillments,
or responding to the social and economic predicaments
in which they find themselves, many Australians are
modifying the family system to suit their individual
needs.

The great majority of gay men and lesbian women,
according to Ian Robertson, "Sociology," form
stable, long-lasting relationships with a person of
the same sex at some time in their lives. Changing
attitudes have made these unions far more socially
acceptable than in the past, and in fact, as we know,
some churches are now performing weddings for gay
couples. Another significant change is the willingness
of many courts to grant custody of children to a gay
parent.

Robertson tells us that, for several years social
welfare agencies in New York and other large cities
have been placing orphaned or runaway gay teenage boys
who are unwelcome in heterosexual foster homes - in the
custody of gay males, usually couples. Another interesting
fact to be aware of - is the rapid advances in the
availability and technology of artificial insemination.
Nowdays, if they so choose, lesbian women are able to be
mothers without having had any heterosexual relationships
at all.

Each society views its own pattern of marriage, family,
and kinship as self-evidently right and proper, and
usually as God given as well. Therefore if we assume
that there is only one "right" family form, then
naturally any change will be interpreted as heralding the
doom of the whole institution.

It is important to recognize, therefore, that there is
an immense range in marriage, family, and kinship
patterns, that each of these patterns may be, at least
in its own context, perfectly viable, and that, above
all, the family, like any other social institution,
must inevitably change through time, in our own
society as in all others.

Suzeonline it wasn't Phil nor i who drew attention to that rather obvious claim but CJ Morgan. Maybe you should address the question to him?

Obviously parents don't (shouldn't) show their kids how to have sex.. and also obvious that to a large extent a child will look to his parents in an effort to make sense of how to live their life.
What they (the parents) do will resonate in the child's perception and understanding of what is normal. This should not be a point of contention. It's a fact that children learn from their parents and the environment around them.

God fearing homophobes? You must be kidding Suzie. So for a person to come to the rational naturalistic conclusion that homosexuality is not 'normal' means that their logic is somehow inhibited by their fear of God? That's a generalist, biased and ignorant point to attempt to make.

I can assure you that there are magnitudes more atheists than priests who commit such atrocities as pedophilia. Do a search for 'barely legal' and see how many websites and magazines of degenerate inhumane exploitative and horrendously 'evil' sites, publications and mass-media that our secular communities turn a blind eye to and in many cases is perceived as a socially acceptable expression of sexual diversity- a mere fetish. These are the fruits of moral individualistic relativity which can just about pass any evil off as a simple right to free speech and thought. Thus the same society would perceive the simple right of an unborn to life less important than a mothers right to kill the child.

"Only someone with severe homophobia would get the two terms mixed up"
Let's not go and start asserting our own opinions and prejudices in an effort to make a point Suzie.

No one has answered the question on; Why is Gay adoption necessary? When there are already legal avenues available to handle any situation. What is the rights of the other genetic parent in such adoptions?

bach, Philo, be assured this is not intended to hurt you, but to inform you.
I honestly and totally do not give you or your God the right to set moral standards for me.
In fact I think both of you would complain if a Muslim leader tried to force you to his way.
Church's, Gods every one of them, set some good rules for living, but bach in your last post you showed true bias true refusal to consider others rights to think other than your way.
Man has evolved is close to not needing the God myth.
And this beating the drum against people who are different is, well surely unchristian?
In my country area about 300 children live with Forster parents, some are scarred from bashing some from mental torture.
Some time and again after making progress are returned to those homes and hurt yet again ,do you care about that.
Did your God not say not to judge, are you sure you would be ok if it was you being judged?

[Deleted for abuse].

Dear bach,

I've read your posts to Suze, and I have found
your arguments not quite fair. You can't accuse
others of being prejudiced when from your own
posts you're anything but objective. Of course,
your inference that your position is valid, is
nothing new, and you're not alone in this kind
of thinking.

Ignorance is the major cause of unpleasant
disconnects between people. The lack of exposure to
another's lifestyle leads to narrow-mindedness, and worse,
to an "us-them" divide.

Education is the answer. Without knowledge there will be
no vestiges of a common ground. A poor understanding
of each other can lead to disputes that are avoidable.

Thanks Foxy, but I think I have had enough of 'ignorance' on this subject.

I will see you on another thread :)

I will not post in this thread again.
It feeds thoughts and ideas I can never agree with.
I have had a smack in the face, after my last post here life bought me to reality .
My phone rang a young father I had been trying to help wanted me to pick him and his 4 months old son up.
220 klm away,
And take them home,160 klm to his wife.
Baffled but willing to help I said well ok, not wanting to but not wanting not to.
Rang him back, said look its my day I want to pick you up early so I can settle down and watch the footy.
Well if you want to wait around Belly he said I am with my girl Friend.
That child [ never picked them up] should have a better life.
Tell me who is best a loving gay couple, no I am definitely not gay, or this bloke?

My apologies to all that i put this out there and have not been engaged in the discussion. My amazing telstra wireless broadband has been poor for a month now and for the last three days has not worked at all. Brilliant service in the bush.
I will try to respond to the posts tonight if i am back on line.

Dear Foxy,

Thank you for your reply. I understand and respect your opinion about my perspective on this rather sensitive topic.

At this point I'd like to be clear on two things.

The first is is that even though I strongly believe that homosexuality is NOT normal or moral I do in fact have a few friends and colleagues that are homosexual. My exposure to people of homosexual tendencies is anything but minimal. From a social, physiological and moral point of view- i do believe that it is a sickness that needs to be addressed and not flaunted or encouraged in sometimes confused youth.

No mortal is without sin and no person has a right to judge.

The second point I'd like to make is that at the very core of this debate is the welfare of an innocent child that must be taken into account paramount to the demands of the homosexual. A child has a born right to a mother and father and this is something that must be central in this debate. It is a tragedy that children are the currency of this political negotiation- as if they don't already have enough to deal with these days.

This topic is not about homosexual legitimacy but more so the rights of children.

Have a good day Foxy and Happy fathers day to all those fathers out there :)

I have been away due to circumstances beyond my control. I return to find two articles written by Warwick Marsh and Bill Muehlenberg yet again demonising gays and lesbians (and straight adoptive parents) and now this nasty piece. I tire of pointing out that same sex couples are as capable of of love and compassion as anyone else.

However, this morning a terrific doco was present on Radio National regarding the extraordinary changes towards abortion and gays in Latin America - a must-listen for enquiring minds. For those with closed minds, it will not make a stick of difference, However, it is worth pointing out that the Catholic Church was so incensed by the granting of safe abortion for women that it made a pact with Muslim clerics! Absolutely true, listen to the doco:

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

Dear bach,

Thank You for taking the time and effort
to explain things from your point of view.
And for saying that you understand mine.

"Love and marriage," an old popular song tells
us, "go together like a horse and carriage."
A compelling assumption in our society is that
everyone will fall in love, will marry, will
have children, and will have an emotionally satisfying
lifetime relationship with the chosen partner.

However, in today's society -
the Australian family is undergoing alterations
and change and its not going to be halted by laws or
sermons. The changes are perhaps more extensive than
is generally realized. We no longer have a husband who
works and a wife who stays at home to care for their
two dependent children as the norm. It probably exists
in fewer than every five households. We have single-parent
families, open marriages, cohabitation, serial monogamy
(people who marry more than once), reconstituted families
(put together from fragments of previous families), childless
couples, and of course gay couples and gay-parent families,
as well as people remaining single.

What seems to be happening is that our society is
tolerating a variety of alternative marriage and family styles.
As I stated earlier this is possibly due to our economic
and cultural diversity, combined with a highly developed
sense of individualism.

In this environment, people tend to make decisions about
marriage, divorce, child-rearing and the like in terms of
what they, personally want - rather than in terms of
traditional moralities, or the other pressures that
previous generations unquestioningly accepted. Therefore
whether we approve or not it won't make an iota of difference,
many Australians will continue to modify the family system
to suit their individual needs.

Any society which allows homosexuals to raise children, contrary to nature, is close to a moral abyss..no..it is already at the edge.. and is in the process of falling over.

Any such society will reap the 'reward' of such moral degradation, but like smoking, you can do it for a long time before the medical problems arise.

It should be patently obvious that where Gay couples want to adopt children the furthest thing in their minds is the welfare of the child.
No..it's their own selfish desire for validation and social acceptance.

When they fully know that a child can only be produced from male female intercourse, (or the medical equivalent) they should not even consider trying to raise a child into a family which by definition is contrary to that fundamental law of nature.

Shame on anyone who would subject a child to the predictable bullying and teasing from others where the mechanics of homosexual practice would be flailed upon the child by merciless schoolyard loudmouths.

As I said.. gay adoption is NOT about 'best interests of the child'

Hi Foxy,

Please understand that ultimately this whole discussion is about the best interest of the child.

I'm not sure where you got those statistics from, but regardless, you go on to describe the nature of the social complexity of new age relationships. I understand that. It is sad and unfortunate that today people cannot form life long normal loving nurturing relationships like our parents and grandparents did many years ago.

However, though this might be the case it is still painfully obvious that the most of ideal environments to raise a child in is within a family headed by their biological parents.

It's only to the detriment of the child and by extension to society that we in Australia (and around the world) have let the safe nurturing and protecting environment of an immediate family disintegrate in and sometimes fragment, rebond and polybond to the multitudes of less than ideal and sometimes dysfunctional and unfit relationships allow adoption to.

A child needs the love and protection of their real parents and if those real parents are void then at least we should draw the line and say that only a married heterosexual couple should be allowed to adopt.

Dear bach,

There are many homeless children, there are many
in orphanages, there are many abused
in so called "normal" homes, and so on.

What is better, a government run institution,
a religious run orphanage, foster homes, or
two caring people who would provide love,
nurturing, care and attention, equal to, and
sometimes often better than, some heterosexual
conventional marriages?

Heterosexuality does not automatically make one
a good parent, the same as homosexuality does not
automatically make one a bad one. Any adoption
should indeed be about the children, but it
should not be about assumptions made simply on
someone's sexuality. Cases for adoption
should be carefully scrutinized on an individual
basis, case by case. Person by person.

I know people who dispite having had two so
called "normal" parents
grew up in the most appaling circumstances and
survived and developed into decent human beings,
despite their atrocious upbringing.

Yes, it should be about the children. And only
about the children.

Belly,
For your information My wife and I have been involved in the temporary fostering of over 60 children in our life and have seen the homes from which the come. All are DOCS placements and the majority are single mothers in casual relationships. This identifies the state of our society, no family commitments, involvement in crime, drugs, most child abuse happens by casual partners not the parent.

Only a natural parent can build an adequate family bond with her own child. Every child I have seen adopted even in hetrosexual families lacks the best bond they can receive with the adoptee parent, even when the parents are devoted to the care of the child. There is no mother's milk.

*No one has answered the question on; Why is Gay adoption necessary? When there are already legal avenues available to handle any situation.*
Any situation except ... Because Philo, two men or two women can't have children of their own together because love-making with the same sex does not produce children. They can still make-love but they can't have children together (did I already say that?) Two people of the same sex can just like any other two hetersexual people, form a loving intimate life-long partnership as a couple. If gay people want to adopt it is because they want to love a child together and to create a family of their own and love that child for the rest of his/her life. The adoptive child needs loving parents and is chosen to be loved. All adoptive parents are screened to make sure they will be loving parents. Simple. I really can't believe what I've read in this discussion. However chin up ... and happy father's day to all the loving dads, the gay, the straight, the bi and all et al!

Dear Foxy,

Yes there are many many children that are left homeless aspecially from single parents, broken families and dysfunctional family units.

There are indeed many abused children but like Philt said most of the abuse is perpetrated by partners of single parents. Take note of this. If there is not a biological bond then there is a great threat to a child. That's why you do not trust your children with strangers!

How can you state that the love and nurturing of the homosexual couple towards the child is 'equal or often better than some heterosexual couples'? I'm sorry to say that this is nothing further than your opinion.

I would rather I was raised in an institution than to grow up in an environment where I had two dads or two mums any day. This is not a natural and adequate environment for any child and the state has no right to commit children to such an environment. I hope and anticipate that one day, if these laws are passed, these children would one day sue the state for exposing them such an unnatural affair.

Not once did I imply that being a heterosexual makes you a better person than a homosexual. However, being a heterosexual parent is a multitude better than being a homosexual parent as far as the child.

I sympathies and empathize with these people. In my opinion it's among the most despicable and cowardly crimes that any person could commit. The state and society should have absolutely no tolerance for such offenders.

Dear bach,

You're certainly entitled to your point of view.
And I can understand it, having been raised as
a Catholic. However, I find it difficult to make
judgements about other people's sex lives (as long
as it damages nobody else). I prefer to leave those
things private whatever their inclinations, which
I feel are none of my business. I certainly don't
believe that just because I'm happily married in
a heterosexual relationship, that this is the only
"right" way to live.

Anyway, whatever you and I feel, as I said earlier,
the laws in this country apply to us all at present.
Whether these laws will change, it will be up to
the country to decide and vote on.

For me this discussion has now run its course.
I'll see you on another thread.

dotto,
Please tell me how two gay men can be a Father to celebrate Father's day? Yet you tell me: "Because Philo, two men or two women can't have children of their own together because love-making with the same sex does not produce children".

Children are born with a father and mother and deserve to have a good relationship with both PARENTS. Same sex couples forfeit their natural rights to children because of that lifestyle choice. Loving relationships of two persons of the same sex is not the criterion of parenting. Two sisters or two brothers can equally have a lifelong loving relationship that alone does not define then as the parents.

Belly,
Said, "I honestly and totally do not give you or your God the right to set moral standards for me.

Well we now know that Belly prefers to operate immorally. I suggest we avoid any contact. She prefers to operate outside the laws of God. Thou shalt not kill - Thou shatl not steal - Thou shalt not commit adultery - Thou shalt not give false testimony - thou shalt not covet of your neighbours.

"Suppose a man has a stubborn, rebellious son who will not obey his father or mother, even though they discipline him. In such cases, the father and mother must take the son before the leaders of the town. They must declare: 'This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious and refuses to obey. He is a worthless drunkard.' Then all the men of the town must stone him to death. In this way, you will cleanse this evil from among you, and all Israel will hear about it and be afraid." (Deuteronomy 21:18-21 NLT)

"Suppose you go to war against your enemies and the LORD your God hands them over to you and you take captives. And suppose you see among the captives a beautiful woman, and you are attracted to her and want to marry her. If this happens, you may take her to your home, where she must shave her head, cut her fingernails, and change all her clothes. Then she must remain in your home for a full month, mourning for her father and mother. After that you may marry her. But if you marry her and then decide you do not like her, you must let her go free. You may not sell her or treat her as a slave, for you have humiliated her." (Deuteronomy 21:10-14 NLT)

"Whoever is captured will be thrust through all who are caught will fall by the sword. Their infants will be dashed to pieces before their eyes their houses will be looted and their wives ravished."
Isaiah 13-15,16

"If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her." Deuteronomy 22:28-29

I'm guessing that Belly can come up with some morals that are a lot better than those (and the host of others like them in that book).

R0bert

Nairbe, you have my upmost support on this one. Certain thing as simply not meant to be, it's just that certain people can't accept nature for what it is.

Bazz >>Picture yourself as the public servant who has to sign the paperwork
authorising the adoption by two male homosexuals of a young boy.

Would you give a thought that 20 years or so down the track you might
be sued by that boy for placing him such a dangerous situation ?

Simple answer, NO! Public servents, like pollies, are not personally accountable for thier actions.

The only people accountable for thier actions are company directors, Full stop!

Oh, so Phil ...

*Children are born with a father and mother and deserve to have a good relationship with both PARENTS.*
Phil, hello ... children up for adoption don't have any parents.

*Same sex couples forfeit their natural rights to children because of that lifestyle choice.*
What natural right to children are you referring to Phil? I don't remember seeing that rule anywhere in the great book of life. So, you're saying that same sex couples is a lifestyle choice? So if they make this choice then too bad it's their own fault and they forfeit any 'natural' rights to children? A bit harsh Phil. A bit homophobic Phil don't you think?

*Loving relationships of two persons of the same sex is not the criterion of parenting.*
In any meaningful relationship between two people it is about love Phil. You may not want to hear this, but it is about love (I didn't say sex, I said love, Phil). It's all to do with wanting love, wanting to give and to receive love. Fundamentally, good parenting is about love.

*Two sisters or two brothers can equally have a lifelong loving relationship that alone does not define then as the parents.*
We weren't talking about sisters and brothers so stay on track Phil.

Well i certainly opened a can of worms. With my second point so poorly expressed i managed to trigger the debate i was trying to avoid. This is not about morality or gay people. I wonder how many of the gay haters have gay friends. I know a few couples one of them parents and they are wonderful at the job. Their child is very much not gay and there are no issues in that way. I find the position of many really requires a lot more debating.
The point of my post was that the rights of the child need to override the rights of all others in adoption. You will note that i don't support singles being allowed to adopt. I made the point that i am a single parent and Bugsy felt i was worrying too much. You could be right but i was more airing my observations as a parent.
Suzie got it nicely that children emulate the adults that bring them up. This is not in a sexual way but how they develop as parents themselves and the learning of the interaction of the relationships in the house hold. By having two parents the same it is similar to being an only child and as this cannot and should not be controlled in the population, when it comes to adoption i saw that the child has the right to be placed in the best possible home involving the full balance possible. Their are not that many children available for adoption in this country so it should not be a problem.
I don't see it should be necessary for a non-genetic parent in a relationship to adopt, what exactly is the point of that beside legal; selfishness.
And Bugsy for the record, i don't agree with overseas adoption and though i am aware of the pain that couples go through when faced with being sterile, i am not a fan of IVF.
P.S. My wireless broadband is still on the fritz. 4 days now, bring on the NBN.

dotto,
You said, "children up for adoption don't have any parents". Then how did they get here? They were conceived by both genetic parents - they have a father and a mother. For other reasons like death, disability etc of parents they are up for adoption. They deserve a mother and a father figure in their upbringing.

Orphaned children were cared for by the next of kin. There were no gay male relationships as they were stoned to death for their unclean behaviour. I do not believe in stoning gays to death as the Muslims still do under shari'ah law.

I suppose if people had of literally taken the laws Robert mentions we would of saved many millions of babies being murdered in mothers womb. However the likes of Robert thinks he knows better than His Creator. No wonder he supports the adoption of kids into perverted homes.

My oh my, how the self righteous moralists here love to hate, preach, moralise, condemn, and deny people rights that the self righteous moralists demand for themselves. Ancient bigotry is alive and well in modern Australia. Luckily these people are a minority, and getting fewer and fewer as each year goes by.

"No wonder he supports the adoption of kids into perverted homes."

No runner I'd hate to see any child placed in your care or home.

R0bert

Robert,
There is a difference between the national laws given by Moses to Isreal which you have quoted above; and the moral law of God given in the 10 commandments; when summed up is - Love the Lord your God and your neighbour as yourself.

Philo that's the part where you end up doing what the rest of us do. Using your brain and applying it to the input's available to you. That includes a mixture of cultural upbringing, whatever religious belief's you have, teachings from other faiths which make sense to you, the values which were important in your home etc. You can look at the bible and based on your worldview decide which rules apply and which don't. A christian in another place or time might come to some quite different conclusions.

Belly, myself and others may not accept the authority of your version of god but that does not mean that there is not a lot of common values/morals.

I can see the value in the commandments you quoted, I can also see the value in living as though karma was real.

I'm rather tired of christian's pretending that their moral's and values are absolute and not impacted by their own judgement and the opinions of those whose views they respect while trying to make out that those who don't follow your god can have no basis for moral's and values in our own lives.

R0bert

The problem with abolishing absolute truth is exactly that you become your own God... in all your flaws and with all your abilities to deceive yourself and those around you in an effort to serve your interests only to the detriment of the society around you.

We think we live in such a liberal environment, so evolved in our own understanding of ourselves and those around us. So sure of ourselves and convinced that we control out own destinies.

Well the simple fact is is that we're very wrong. Our society has gone to the dogs.... Rape, murder, prostitution, exploitation, pedophilia, depressions and mental illness are at an all time high.

People need to wake up and notice an ailing society where everyone is left fending for themselves, where love and loyalty are a thing of the past and where we justify the exploitation of others in any means necessary. Take pornography and prostitution for instance. The church teaches against these two evils but society tells us to accept them as they're a sign of liberalism and vibrancy.
How many people actually consider or stop to think about the circumstances of a young girl who somehow is forced or convinced to receive a little bit of cash in exchange for self worth and dignity. How many people consider these things? Not many. Today our morals are subjective and we convince ourselves of the most inhumane and despicable things simply so we can do what we want and walk away without feeling guilt.

And if you think science proves that God doesn't exist then you've been fooled. Modern science is leading scientists back to God. Do some research. Look up Ben Stein. Learn about the fundamentals of molecular biology. Open your eyes and walk away froim mainstream media which has done it's best to deceive, divide and control people.

Bach,

The problem with abolishing absolute truth is that you might actually have to think for yourself.

Claiming that it is against God's will and nature allows one to be a bigot without having to think, as using one's grey matter might lead one to realise what mean spirited and spiteful position one occupies.

If you're so capable of living a rightous life by means of your own intellect alone then why do we have man made laws?

When you live in a society where you believe that you have the right to 'choose' between what is right and wrong you should also appreciate and consider what impact your actions have on the community around.

For instance, if you were to abolish the law of adultery which this society pretty much has done so long ago it will surely lead to broken hearts, homes, and families usually where if a children are involved they're most likely to suffer the greatest.

Getting rid of absolute law means relativity and subjectivity when it come to what is right and wrong. This is dangerous because as we know only too well it doesn't take much for people to convince themselves and others to commit the worst of crimes.

Christ commands people to 'love your enemies'. It's because in our hearts and minds we can drown our consciences and by arrogance use our flawed logic to justify the exploitation of others to serve our own ends.

This is how the law permits prostitution for example. A multi-billion dollar industry that bullies and intimidates and places often young, confused, desperate girls at the mercy of deviant degenerates.

This society has been thinking for itself for quite a while now. What are the fruits of this arrogance?

Countless brothels and strip joint in every city worked by your daughters. A general population plagued by depression and mental illness. Rape, Pedophilia and other Crime at an all time high. Countless elderly dying alone in nursing homes. Sustaining a multibillion dollar industry whose only service is to provide you with a quick and efficient means to kill your unborn children. Families treating their pets better than their own kids. Come on guys wake up and smell the roses.

Bach,

In summary, religion enables one not only to be thoughtlessly bigoted, but self righteous about it too.

I will have to settle for informed angst.

Newsflash to bach - adultery is not illegal in any Australian jurisdiction. It is, however, in places like Saudi Arabia and Iran. Personally, I'd rather live here.

SM - we differ politically, but on this subject it's nice to be able to agree 100%.

SM that's not a summary but your bias. It could easily say that lack of religion cultivates arrogance and and stupidity but that would be my bias and opinion.

CJ Newsflash: I was referring to the Ten Commandments and I'm well aware of the civil and criminal law in this country. Might help to read the article over.

Also CJ i think SM is married so enough with the flirting

CJ,

If we had similar politics I would be deprived of our skirmishes. I actually have a fair number of highly educated and deeply religious colleagues none of whom hold simplistic fundamentalist views.

I can only conclude that fundamentalism and bigotry is the realm of the intellectual pygmy.

Bach, your biased opinions are self evident.

Shadow Ministry now brings out his intellectual snobbery

'I actually have a fair number of highly educated and deeply religious colleagues none of whom hold simplistic fundamentalist views.'

Of course anyone that talks straight which shows how corrupt humanity behaves is simplistic. Congratulations SM for having such 'wise' friends who can confirm your prejudices. No need for a Saviour for you SM eh! The word fundamentalist is slimy way of trying to discredit a person. The truth is that many secularist are just as fundamentalist in their beliefs as bible believing Christians. Just look at the fantasy of evolution and the way many deny the very obvious (a Creator). The only problem with their fundamentalism is that their dogmas must keep changing as their previous one is discredited.

Any thinking person will be led to the fundamentals of the Christian faith (ie their desperate need of a Saviour from their corrupt natures). It seems more convenient for the secularist to make a myriad of excuses for their adultery, child abuse, baby murder, divorces, fornication, homosexuality, drug taking blasphemies etc. It takes a lot of 'deep religion' and crap to make excuses and explain away this behaviour. No wonder the gospel is hidden from the 'wise' of this world. Of course their only solution is to drug the depressed and blame others for their own corruption. Funny how the more educated we become the more arrogant and self righteous people are. I suggest try humbling yourself before your Maker and you might find you and your friends are not so wise.

I rest my case.

He rests his case... amazing

Actually Runner and Bach your case has been appalling from the start. I asked and hoped that we could keep biased and particularly religious positions out of the conversation and that some of you might have an opinion that you formed for yourselves and not handed to you by some church. The point is not meant to be one of moralism but one of intellectually based rational decision making using the basic point of considering the rights of the child as overriding all other rights and prejudices that may exist.
The overall drive and predictability of the posts by most has been disappointing and has left me wondering if a site exists where people can debate and develop their opinions over rational conversation devoid of bigoted and extreme views they cannot and will not move on. If you are not learning and growing intellectually and as a person you might as well be dead.

nairbe,
If you want only responses from secularist atheists with whom you agree, then I suggest you only past on closed secularist atheists sites. Learn OLO presents diverse opinion. A christian world view is an equally valid point of view.

Philo and Bach,

I can happily say that of the Christians I know, very few hold the same fundamentally bigoted view points that you do. So to claim to represent the many people of faith that don't share your extreme views is fraudulent and insulting.

That last post from runner on the previous page displays all the inaccurate falsehoods, bigotry and crazy irrational dogma that one expects from a typical Dark Age inhabitant like runner. He's no Christian.

I'll also borrow a quote from another member that I read here a month or so ago, Philo and Bach are "as Christian as the Pope is Muslim". Christianity has come out of the Dark Ages, but people like Philo, Bach and runner still reside in those superstitious times. Sad. They're not Christians. They're something else.

TZ52HX

I would be extremely concerned if I had your endorsement. Try reading the Scriptures before mouthing off about something you seem to be very ignorant of.

Gotta love it. If you don't agree with him you're "ignorant". Goes to show, he's no "Christian".

Philo,
Actually it's funny you say that, i have tried all sorts of sites over the years and find the same problem. It is not your christianity that is the issue but your blind dogma.
Developing an understanding of an issue does not require you to turn your back on your faith, but you do need to try and stop being a missionary and convert everyone on line. You learn nothing from the discussion and generally loose the respect of other people.
Ignorance may be bliss but it is still ignorance.

runner: << Try reading the Scriptures before mouthing off about something you seem to be very ignorant of. >>

That's hilarious, given the way you prattle on endlessly about evolution and global warming, when you clearly know next to nothing about science.

What do you know about science CJ?

Shadow Minister - any Christian, Jew or Muslim who is pro homosexual adoption rights is deluded like yourself and doesn't know their religion. Christianity is about serving and loving all people like God loves us. Part of loving people is to make sure children grow up in safe, 'normal' and nurturing environments.

At the end of the day lets discus weather or not a homosexual couple should be raising children.

Hmmm the weather's not good for discussing this with you bach, runner or Philo. Your position clearly leaves no room for discussion about it.

Personally I'm happy to discuss the issue with anybody and would be more than happy to leave religion out of it. In fact the only reason I mentioned religion was in reply to a few discriminatory and biased assumptions and comments made by certain people on the forum.

Lets try again.

Homosexual adoption rights pose a real and immediate threat to the welfare of children and so should not be passed in exchange for the basic rights of children.

Children have a born natural right to heterosexual parenting. This is not a debate about homosexuality but about the welfare and best interests of children.

These are our children, the fruit of normal heterosexual intimacy and we have a duty of care towards each individual.

Hi bach - I have a Science degree. What do you know about homophobia?

CJ,

Bach does not know basic English or grammar. I am surprised he can even spell science.

"lets discus weather or not" - Classic!

I bet he has white out on his monitor.

CJ you're not the only one with a science degree. What was your major and where did you study? Shadow Minister it's nice to see that you resort to personal attacks when challenged.

Bach,

If you question CJ's education credentials with year 2 level English you are setting yourself up, and you are in no position to cry foul when you have done the same yourself.

Given your inability to express yourself cogently I seriously doubt you have any tertiary science degree.

Dear oh dear, bach. I'm hardly going to provide someone as abusive as you with enough detail for you to track me down IRL. Suffice to say that I have a couple of undergraduate degrees and postgraduate qualifications. In my Science degree I did a double major in Psychology and Mathematics.

Now, what do you know about homophobia?

lol.. year two? That's harsh buddy. I just want to point out that I was enquiringly not questioning SM... there's is a huge difference. Do yourself a favour and don't act so smug :)

English is my second language but i do already hold one degree, and am completing a second combined engineering degree as well having studied chemistry and molecular biology... anyway what would my English literacy skills have to do with holding a science degree? You're reasoning as I've noticed throughout your posts is entertaining to say the least

CJ where have I been abusive?

I was just interested in getting a more scientific point of view on the matter from you. I thought to ask because of your condescending tone towards another member of this forum about his lack of scientific background. I was also hoping you might have some knowledge something biology/molecular-biology related.

Psychology couldn't really answer what I would want to ask but interestingly is your study of mathematics... what was your focus in that?

Well bach, I'll tell my children that they are the normal fruit of mum and dad's heterosexual intimacy. And they will reply yuck.

Johann Sebastian Bach married his second cousin, and they had 7 (fruit that is).

J.S. Bach then married a young soprano 17 years his junior and the normal fruit of their heterosexual intimacy produced 13, fruit.

Fruit, fruit, fruit

lol what is the point of that rant?

Hi bach - it was my first degree, about 30 years ago. The maths major was in statistics. My second degree was in anthropology, which became the career from which I've mostly retired. However, it's one reason I know that the claim that the nuclear family is "normal" or "natural" for humans is patently false. There are just so many other kinds of families and expressions of gender and sexuality across cultures and human history.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree, since I think your faith blinkers what you know of humanity. That's fine, but please don't expect those who don't share it to welcome attempts to force its values on to the rest of us.

C J,
You may very well correct me here but i understood that the nuclear family (being mum,dad and the kids) was a fairly recent development in human behaviour. Have we not mostly used community parenting until we began to develop civilisation. Even then in some cultures community parenting and more common the extended family took responsibility for the raising of children.
I see no reason why a diverse range of family structures cannot offer the safe and secure environment that a child needs. My point was and remains that by limiting that environment, IE: single parents or single sex parenting, we restrict the diversity required to deliver the child an ideal environment in which to develop.
Though many family structures will occur in the community i saw adoption as a oportunity to get the balance right for the child rather than constantly worrying about our own rights.

Nairbe
I think that limiting parenting to a single-sex structure may be limited by the 'single' rather than the sex. The benefit in having a partner to parent with, is in having the benefit of balance to the equation. Two parents can bounce ideas off one another and reign the other in if the parenting style gets too intense from time to time. The child can learn from seeing two parents in a loving relationship together. They can learn about how people care for one another from seeing their parents do this. In my observation, many fathers can be very 'motherly' if they are given the opportunity to express this gendered perception of the ability to be nurturing. But also, many single parents do a wonderful job, and while single parenting is probably more stressful due to the lack of partnered support it can still be better in some cases when compared with coupled parenting. It depends upon so many variables in life that it's difficult to really assess if a child from a same-sex or simply single parent family would actually be disadvantaged. My guess is Nairbe, that someone like you who would take the initiative to give this topic such in-depth thought, probably means that you are a very thoughtful parent. What you may see as a problem may not be recognised as a problem in your child's eyes. They may never see it as a problem for themselves in the future,either.

dotto,
Thanks for the thoughtful insight, it was a bit lacking at times during this conversation. Opinions such as yours do help me to moderate some concerns i have over parenting issues. It is no fun as a single parent and i would not promote it to anyone. I do understand that it can be unavoidable and in some situations better than the destructive relationship it was born from.
Thanks everyone for your contributions, we may not all agree but let's hope we all learned something new.