Gay Adoption
The Herald reports:
The acting head judge of the Family Court has called for gay and lesbian couples to be given rights to adopt children, just as a private member’s bill on the issue goes into the ballot for Parliament’s order paper today. …
He said the Adoption Act, which has not been fully reviewed since 1955, was outdated and unjustly discriminatory, breaching the Bill of Rights Act, the Human Rights Act and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Only married couples and individuals can adopt children under the act. …
It is interesting that an individual can adopt, but not a de facto couple.
My position on the issue of gay adoption, is that there should not be a prohibition on it, but that whether or not the prospective parents are of the same or different genders should be a factor in deciding on individual cases.
I do believe that it is important for a child to have both a male and female adult in their lives, and the ideal circumstance is that the prospective parents are a male and female married (or civilly united) to each other.
But that is only one of many factors that should be taken into account when deciding adoptions. Some of the others are length of relationship, job stability, income, criminal record, health, age etc etc.
I’m not sure how adoptions are currently decided but I do know there are many more people wanting to adopt, than there are babies made available for adoption. Hence I assume there is some sort of scoring criteria used to decide who gets priority – perhaps similar to the criteria used to determine eligibility to qualify to immigrate here.
So again I would not have a prohibition, but if two couples were equally “qualified” to adopt a child, I believe the best interests of the child are to grow up with both a father and a mother. Hence I also support a married couple having priority over an individual (note again individuals are not banned).
But there would be situations where a gay couple could well score “higher” on the scale of best able to provide a family to an unwanted child (and many gay couples already are parents). For example a gay couple who have been together for 15 years, are in excellent health, and earning high incomes would be better than a married couple who have been together only 18 months, with one parent not working due to illness and the other earning just $30,000 a year.
Really what it comes down to is treating each applicant for adoption on its merits, and making decisions purely on what is the best interests of the child. A prohibition on sexual orientation actually acts against being able to make a decision based on individual circumstances.
August 20th, 2009 at 7:17 am
I am a big fan of open adoption which gives the natural parent/s and the adopting parents the freedom to work out the level of involvement of the former in the life of the child. For this to work the natural parent must have buy in. I suggest they be given the ability to choose/approve the adopting parents whoever they may be.
August 20th, 2009 at 7:21 am
More people competing for the few adoptions available each year. I would have to say that i think that, on average, a stable gay couple would make better parents than a welfare mum with three or four children from different fathers. The kids would dress better for a start.
August 20th, 2009 at 7:24 am
> I do believe that it is important for a child to have both a male and female adult in their lives
But gays and lesbians don’t just stick to their own kind, David. Believe it or not, they have male and female friends, just like you and I do. How many women (and men) are solo mums (and dads)? The inference is that their kids are not doing as well as they might. Alas, there is little evidence to support such an assumption. But you are welcome to your blinkered beliefs.
Your attitude comes from a previous generation. And, no, that isn’t a compliment!
[DPF: Having adult friends of the family is not the same as having a parent]
August 20th, 2009 at 7:32 am
I think having a male (or female) friend dropping in every so often doesn’t really count as a male and female influence on a child’s life.
August 20th, 2009 at 7:33 am
For example a gay couple who have been together for 15 years, are in excellent health, and earning high incomes would be better than a married couple who have been together only 18 months, with one parent not working due to illness and the other earning just $30,000 a year.
That just reflects your values structure and after all coming from a high income background does not seem to have done Millie Elder any favors. We can all come up with hypothetical scenarios to boost our case.
But one of the criteria that has always been important (at least in theory if not practice) is that a child should be placed in a home with a similar ethnic and cultural background as that of its biological parent(s).
August 20th, 2009 at 7:35 am
I don’t see why a private contract such as an adoption is any business of the State. If a biological mother wants her child to go to a gay couple, that is no business of mine or yours either.
Government restrictions on adoption are the reason our abortion rates are so high and so few unwanted babies are adopted out. Let’s change the law to allow for commercial adoption and surrogacy, and reduce a host of social problems.
August 20th, 2009 at 7:36 am
ross, If you honestly believe that the average kids today from the DPB sector, “their kids are not doing as well as they might” are as well adjusted by comparison to a traditional mum and dad upbringing from “a previous generation” then you haven’t just got blinkers, you’ve got a blindfold
August 20th, 2009 at 7:37 am
Ross – Nice to see you being adult and allowing David an opinion you don’t share.
Not.
If you mean what you say, stop using terms such as “blinkered beliefs”. Somehow reduces the sincerity of your statement.
I’m against gays adopting. I believe that a kid needs a mum and a dad in a stable, loving relationship. For that reason, I’m also against single parents adopting. Call me old-fashioned.
I wonder why there are so few children available for adoption these days – something to do with the fact we’re aborting whole generations of them perhaps?
Future generations will look back on us in shame.
Rufus
August 20th, 2009 at 7:38 am
Let’s change the law to allow for commercial adoption and surrogacy, and reduce a host of social problems.
And introduce a whole range of horrors involving the exploitation of vulnerable women and children.
August 20th, 2009 at 7:41 am
There is supposedly a strong convention against MPs intefering with the judiciary, signalled by an outbreak of public hand-wringing whenever an MP comments on a high-profile court case.
Here we have a senior judge effectively lobbying Parliament about legislation being entered into the ballot. Shouldn’t the same experts be demanding he shut up and mind his own business?
Just wondering.
(Unlike everyone else on the interweb, I have no view worth mentioning on the merits of the proposed law change.)
August 20th, 2009 at 7:42 am
Ross – I think it’s actually fairly well established that children of solo parents are vastly worse off, not just due to economic factors but also due to the simple lack of two parents. Seeing two people in a relationship communicate and interact is a powerful and important teaching tool as children form their own social skills.
If the child is straight, then observing the unique form of male-female relationships is certainly more applicable than observing a gay couple, although they’ll still get all the same basic concepts – compromise, communication, etc – which is preferable to what they’d get from a single parent. An opposite gender friend of the gay couple isn’t much of a substitute – they’ll possibly get a role-model for that gender if the friend is very involved, but they won’t get regular exposure to appropriate in-relationship behaviours for that gender.
August 20th, 2009 at 7:49 am
So I represent the current generation and even though I agree that SOME homosexual couples are capable of providing a better home than a welfare mum (quite frankly I know a lot of gay couples that would resent that analogy) – it’s not natural. It is strangely ironic that most liberals support something that is not “as nature intended”, but I’m sure they’ll find a way to transcend their common sense and justify it to themselves.
My compliments to you then David, for having an attitude of accepting what your common sense tells you.
The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it. Terry Pratchett
August 20th, 2009 at 7:51 am
Wow, my first post ever!
Roughly ten years ago, I was pregnant with my daughter and, as the father didn’t want to know, I very strongly considered adoption. What a lot of people don’t realise is, that the birth mother actually gets the option of choosing the adoptive parents, through CYFS.
I was given, literally, dozens of portfolios of prospective parents to read through….. Each of these portfolios contained photos of the prospective parents, their homes, written autobiographies and accounts of their family histories, careers, sporting achievements, religious backgrounds, etc….. I was basically reading the life stories of these people. (In retrospect it’s kind of scary to think that, even though I was a relatively normal, sane girl, there could be some real basketcases who were given access to the exact same information simply because they were pregnant and considering adoption!!)
From my understanding, these couples (in my case – I told the CYFS worker I was only interested in giving my baby to a couple, so I never even saw an individual’s applicaton) – were all vetted for criminal and mental issues before I ever saw their portfolios anyway. But – sadly – I have to be honest, the sheer volume of propsective parents was overwhelming for me…… when selecting potential adoptive parents I started to discriminate on such things as looks and wealth, simply because, I COULD. There were so many couples who would have loved to adopt my baby, that there was simply no need to “settle” for anyone who wasn’t, in my 20-year-old opinion, the “perfect” parents!
So I guess, sometimes people think that by allowing gay couples to adopt, that they’re suddenly going to be given priority over straight couples or something…… and maybe that’s why some people are opposed to it (cos maybe this gay couple is going to get their illegitimate grandchild? or take precedence over them, the straight couple?) – whereas in reality, I think the most likely scenario is that a gay couple will end up adopting the baby who was naturally born to a friend, or a girl who personally selected them from prospective parents because SHE thought they were the best parents for her baby.
But the adoption process is certainly NOT a lottery!!!
August 20th, 2009 at 7:54 am
Interestingly enough, this was a very good point made on Newstalk ZB this morning. I agree, it is important for a child to have both male and female influences and to see what a heterosexual relationship is like. But the presenter kept asking a very good question.
What is the difference between a homosexual couple and a solo parent in terms of having influences of other genders? In both cases you will have friends and family in the group. It might not be a live in influence, but it isn’t in either case. And if you look at a solo parent dating, isn’t that more disruptive to the child with “parents” coming and going and dealing with all the emotion associated with that?
It’s certainly an interesting topic to discuss. I cannot form a reasonable objection to it, but I don’t like it and I’m concerned that we do not know the impact it will have on the children. We can guess and extrapolate, but until there’s been a few generations under this we won’t know.
And I’d hate to have a child grow up and feel uncomfortable in society because their parents chose an alternative lifestyle. Children aren’t toys.
Edit: MeneerCronje? You wouldn’t have happened to have taught at Durbanville Highschool?
August 20th, 2009 at 7:57 am
This proposal is just part of the creeping normalisation of sexual deviency that we’ve experienced over the last 40 years. In that sense it’s quite logical. My concern is that innocent children should not become disposable pawns in a game of “look how normal we are… we have our own children!”. We should strive for what’s best for the kids, and for me, like Rufus, that’s a stable loving relationship that provides a father and mother. If there are insufficient couples of this type and still too many kids who need a family then other options should be considered. But we’re nowhere near that situation.
August 20th, 2009 at 7:59 am
A mind is like a parachute. It can’t work until it is opened!
Such a minefield for all parties. I have a level of discomfort with any particular factor being weighted too much in these cases.
There are so many conflicting needs and requirements.
My own gut feeling is that any family unit with children in it already has to be the easiest to measure as being suitable or not, and indeed preferential in most cases.
August 20th, 2009 at 8:02 am
good post getstaffed
August 20th, 2009 at 8:02 am
I may be as thick as a stick in a bucket of pigswill but isn’t there something wrong when you read that there are 18,000+ abortions per year in NZ and as DPF notes above “but I do know there are many more people wanting to adopt, than there are babies made available for adoption.”?
August 20th, 2009 at 8:08 am
Ian Wishart debates the mostly unforseen negative issues around homosexual adoption in his excellent book Eve’s Bite.
August 20th, 2009 at 8:10 am
This topic should be about what is right for the child, not what is right for parents so to speak……
August 20th, 2009 at 8:11 am
Sean – some close friends of ours adopted in the UK a few years ago. Their search criteria were the child should not be from parents with a criminal record, nor from parents known to have schizophrenia (and one other mental illness which I forget). In the year preceding their search there were just 10 – yes ten! – children who fit that criteria.
August 20th, 2009 at 8:14 am
As a parent who has an adopted child (almost 30 years old) some fosters and a couple of natural ones, I believe that we have a pretty good system for adoption. I don’t think we need to legislate when the selection of parents is done in a manner that tackles the most important issues so smoothly. The process in brief;
1) Adoption is about finding the best possible parents for this child.
2) The birth parent(s) should have input to the selection process.
Nothing else matters.
So it is not about finding kids for prospective parents.
David hits the nail on the head. The best situation for a child is a traditional family unit, with a strong whanau surrounding it. Any other model, is weaker. That is why it is vital for us to make more effort to introduce good male role models into children’s lives where this does not exist, or is weak.
Having children is a privilege not a right.
August 20th, 2009 at 8:19 am
I totally agree with your post. When you see some of the terrible heterosexual parents around it is hard to see what is wrong with a couple of loving homosexuals rearing a child. However any adoption agency is going to consider a heterosexual couple first to be offered a child then a single parent and possibly a homosexual couple.
It is not always a case of a stranger’s baby being offered for adoption. A single woman for instance might want to adopt a baby from within her wider family. What of people wanting to adopt unwanted children from other countries? As for a single woman bringing up a child what of single widows? What of grandparents bringing up children for whatever reason? What children want is love and security. As long as they get that it doesn’t matter too much who they get it from.
August 20th, 2009 at 8:19 am
The militant homosexual lobbyist will have a few showcase examples of homosexuals adopting children. They try to make out there is little downside but in the real world their certainly is. For example consider how other children and their parents will treat their children. Certainly they will find some friends who have been raised by liberal parents but there will also be some bullying from others.
If anyone wants another prospective check out the following
http://www.gayconspiracy.co.uk/page44.html
http://www.gayconspiracy.co.uk/page58.html
August 20th, 2009 at 8:20 am
Isn’t being gay a brain defect though? There are many types of mental defects, gay is just one of them.
Otherwise, none of us would be here, thus pleasing the greens.
August 20th, 2009 at 8:21 am
This could be an interesting exercise.
Just for a moment put aside your personal circumstances, background and ideology (hard isn’t it?) and imagine you are back in the womb and about to be born tomorrow.
What type of relationship would you prefer to be born into and raised by? Is it anything other than a loving relationship between your natural mother and father?
August 20th, 2009 at 8:43 am
Gay adoption is wrong on so many levels, getstaffed summed it up well.
It CANNOT be healthy to place a child with two men hating feminist/lesbians, the same could be said for two gay men, I do not care how liberal people are we owe it to our kids to give them as normal an upbringing as possible, if the adopted child happens to turn out gay then so be it but on no accounts should we place them in a situation that is not the norm.
As mentioned by others, so many of the gay couples claiming they want kids are doing so simply to “stick it up” the establishment, we cannot allow babies to be used as pawns in their battle, evidence shows us that the best kids come from a normal family background (mum and dad) why would anybody want to change that simply to make a political point.
Those parents who try and adopt face many hurdles, simply put, there are not enough kids to go around, if we start adding gay and lesbian couples to that waiting list it will only make things worse.
The comments of andrei also annoy me, “But one of the criteria that has always been important (at least in theory if not practice) is that a child should be placed in a home with a similar ethnic and cultural background as that of its biological parent(s)” the ethnic background of the parents and the child are bloody irrelevant, if you follow that logic you would never allow differing races to marry and have kids of their own.
Gay adoption must be stopped, not because those who oppose it are homophobic, not because it makes some people uncomfortable and certainly not because it is against the teachings of the stupid church, it must be stopped because it is WRONG.
August 20th, 2009 at 8:51 am
BB, I agree with most of your points especially about how it CANNOT be healthy to place a child with two men hating feminist/lesbians. However I do not think you would general find gay men hating women if that is what you meant.
August 20th, 2009 at 8:52 am
Homosexuals can have as many children as they want. All they need to do is stick it in the right place, like the rest of us have to.
August 20th, 2009 at 8:52 am
“Let’s change the law to allow for commercial adoption and surrogacy, and reduce a host of social problems.
And introduce a whole range of horrors involving the exploitation of vulnerable women and children.”
Andre, I barely know where to start with such an awful argument.
At the moment a woman is forbidden to sell an unwanted baby. She has to give it away, or abort it. Are you really saying that’s less exploitative?!!! Putting a woman through that hell for nine months for NO personal benefit or gain?!!!! Oh, but heaven forbid she get some financial reward for her troubles, that’s “exploitative”. Bizarre.
No wonder many women just say “fuck that” and head down to the clinic. No wonder many more keep them, only to raise them in poverty and/or on a benefit. THAT, my friend, is exploitation – condemning a child to that fate on account of some handwringing belief that capitalism should not extend to parenthood.
August 20th, 2009 at 8:57 am
Chuck
Yes, sorry for the confusion, while I am sure there are the odd gay (male) couple who have no time for females I am yet to meet them.
August 20th, 2009 at 9:06 am
Several comments here:
1. Its not about whats best for the prospective parents. Its about whats best for the children.
2. There is no shortage of heterosexual couples wanting to adopt children. Out of that group it should be very easy to find excellent families to adopt children into.
3. Imagine the sort of oddity a child from a female/female, male/male parenting arrangement would appear at school. Imagine in the school ground “What does your dad do?” answer: “I don’t have two dads, I have two mums”. This child is likely to become the subject of ridicule for being different. This can’t be good for the child.
Consequently, I see no need whatsoever to change the status quo.
August 20th, 2009 at 9:20 am
tknorriss – just because something is eminently sensible to us, doesn’t mean it should be compulsory for everyone.
If you don’t like gay couples adopting children… don’t let them adopt your child!
Personally, I think very few biological parents would let a gay couple adopt their child, but I see no reason to stop them. It is their child to adopt out, not mine.
My view is that a Mum and a Dad is the ideal. But that said, there is also a lot of gay couples out there who, on balance, would make better parents than a lot of straight ones.
You don’t have to like it, but there are a much worse things that could happen to a child than for he or she to have two loving, gay parents.
August 20th, 2009 at 9:31 am
Blair, children are not property.
August 20th, 2009 at 9:32 am
The comments of andrei also annoy me, “But one of the criteria that has always been important (at least in theory if not practice) is that a child should be placed in a home with a similar ethnic and cultural background as that of its biological parent(s)” the ethnic background of the parents and the child are bloody irrelevant, if you follow that logic you would never allow differing races to marry and have kids of their own.
Do you think it would be right to place a Jewish baby into a Catholic household, or a baby of Irish Catholic descent into a Jewish one?
Inter- country adoptions have always concerned me for this very reason. Not forgetting the sad story of Masha Allen who was adopted from Russia by a pedophile who did what pedophiles do to her and plastered photos of his triumph over her on the internet for other sickos to enjoy.
August 20th, 2009 at 9:44 am
I can see the genuine desire for adoption amongst lezzos, and since gay surrogacy is well established child rearing by lezzos is already somewhat common [matthew Ridge & his lezzo mother springs to mind]. However in the case of male homosexuals I don’t think raising a child would fit the lifestyle.
Male homosexual relationships tend to be highly unstable and emotionally charged. Physical abuse is at least twice as high amongst homosexuals as it is among heterosexuals. Studies in Vermont and the Netherlands have also revealed that civil unions last on average about 18 months [breakups mostly due to an anonymous outside liaison affecting the core relationship i.e cheating] But of course such facts are ignored by the media and homosexual culture.
Homosexual men in particular are not simply folk who prefer the same sex , but are people who are “pansexual” They seek sexual gratification in any place by any means possible to satisfy their erotic desires. They are hedonists in the truest sense of the word, and long-standing monogamous relationships are the last thing most male homosexuals want. Yet another reason why the whole idea of “gay marriage & adoption” for males in particular, is such a fraud.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2006/apr/21/gayrights.comment
August 20th, 2009 at 9:52 am
BlairM “Personally, I think very few biological parents would let a gay couple adopt their child, but I see no reason to stop them. It is their child to adopt out, not mine.”
Blair, you seem to be missing the main point of my argument. It is what is best for the children ABOVE ALL ELSE.
While there is a huge surplus of heterosexual couples willing to adopt children, there is simply no need to change the law to allow homosexual couples to adopt. If we had a shortage of prospective adoptive couples, then I might agree to a change.
Put yourself in the place of someone considering where to place a child. You have two couples that are equal in all respects except one couple is heterosexual, and one couple is gay. Where would you place the child, and why? When you have answered these questions you will understand my argument.
August 20th, 2009 at 9:53 am
DPF pretty much sums up my view point on this. However how I arrive at this is by starting at everyone should be treated equally, I dont believe in what is moral being decided by some old book or ick factor, but rather logic. If you truly believe we were given free will I think you need to believe that we were given the ability to decipher what is moral and isnt and not have these things dictated to us.
However in relation to children JohhnyMAc nails it on the head with “Having children is a privilege not a right.” Nothing can be truer but unfortunately so ignored by our society. However when we as socitey have the ability to make a decision we have an oblogation to do one that is in the best interests of the child. I think that often that decision can best be made by the mom of the child (which I understand is how it works currently) who is doing a heroic thing in adopting which I understand is extremely hard to do.
However in the unusual circumstances where there is no parental involvement and the state needs to decide then in a scoring criteria there would be a bonus for hetrosexual couple on the grounds that you guarantee both a male and female influence on a childs life – which I believe and most do believe is important. However it need not be the only criteria. I personally know some fantastic gay parents. However they have done it in such a way as to ensure there is someone from the opposite gender who has a very close impact on the childs life in a godparent role.
Chuck Bird – that stuff you linked to is bla
August 20th, 2009 at 10:00 am
Ga thought I deleted the last part of my post – inteded to. Filled with hate is an overstatement, however it is misleading as is most sites which have an underlying agenda. Rest of my statement is clear OTT
August 20th, 2009 at 10:00 am
getstaffed (August 20th, 2009 at 8:11 am) – that is just mental. Why should it be so difficult to save a life? You were talking about the biological parents w.r.t the criteria right? I can understand some criteria for the adoptive parents, but to have so many filters is quite the oxymoron. Its almost as if because the biological parents are not pefect then the child doesn’t deserve a chance at life with adoptive parents. I really can’t work that out.
August 20th, 2009 at 10:11 am
I’d say this is all a bit moot – I know a couple who adopted a couple of years ago. They told me that the year before, only 6 children had been adopted in this country.
So the answer to your question of “how many” is very, very few.
August 20th, 2009 at 10:13 am
Jeff, you claim you think moral issues should be decided by logic. You then rubbish my links with no reason given.
August 20th, 2009 at 10:54 am
It’s not a case of allowing gay couples to adopt. The law should be silent on the issue.
All other things being equal, yes, I would choose a straight couple over a gay one. It is not ideal to have two fathers and no mother, or the other way around. But it’s a long step from that to making a claim that gay couples are universally bad parents, or are all promiscuous, or violent, or perverted, or unstable. A biological parent will naturally be inclined to find a good couple for her child. If that happens to be a gay couple, stereotypes do not apply, as a good couple will by definition not be promiscuous/violent/perverted/unstable, whether they are straight or gay.
Mistakes happen with adoption and children suffer, but that happens now also. Why is the State necessarily more trustworthy to vet candidates than the biological mother. Let her make her own choice, and if you want to convince her that a gay couple would be bad for her child, do so with the power of persuasion, not the force of law.
As for the surplus of straight couples making gay adoption unnecessary – well even more reason to keep the State out of it. Parents will make their own choice and gay couples will likely miss out anyway.
August 20th, 2009 at 11:00 am
So a good gay couple is better than a bad hetero couple. Reasonable enough.
August 20th, 2009 at 11:11 am
So why does the law presume that all gay couples are worse parents than even the worst heterosexual couples?
August 20th, 2009 at 11:13 am
I was reading a maths blog a while ago. The author is Jewish and he was recalling the bullying he suffered at school (including having his fingers broken once to see what it sounded like) for his faith.
Perhaps we should stop Jewish people from having children because their kids might be bullied?
August 20th, 2009 at 11:15 am
Repton
First of all, all prospective parents are thoroughly vetted, the chances of bad adoptive parents getting through the system is extremely unlikely.
You are right when you say that it is about finding the BEST possible parents for the child, all the evidence tells us that the BEST possible parents are a Mum and a Dad.
The law does not presume gay couples are worse parents at all, the evidence proves that heterosexual couples are better.
August 20th, 2009 at 11:23 am
Just one of many reports I’ve read.
August 20th, 2009 at 11:51 am
“Jeff, you claim you think moral issues should be decided by logic. You then rubbish my links with no reason given.”
Chuck – firstly my apologies for the language in my first post – I thought I had deleted it as it was way beyond my thought spectrum of actual thought.
Re rubbishing – the link you gave is hardly what you would called a balanced review, not that one would likely think to get one from a site labelled ‘thegayconspiracy’. However my point is in every article it lists it doesnt put in any of the contradicting studies to what it is asserting. For example the “10% lie” firstly it moves the goal poasts from those who think they are to those who actively practise. Not going to get into the details surrounding the actual studies as it would take to much of my time, other than to say there is significant scientific support to suggest that around 10% of the population had homosexual tendancies – not to say that portion actually practice.
If one really wants to see the bias of the website read articles like “Nazis&Homos” which streches truths in an novelistic manner.
Anyway debating homosexuality per say is not the topic of this thread as I am just going to disagree with 95% of Kiwiblog readers, being the demographic that KiwiBlog attracts, thats fine. However in regards to adoption I come to the same conclusion as many in that the interests of the children should be at the forefront of the discussion.
August 20th, 2009 at 12:19 pm
Fletch, you raise a very good point about the length of time different relationships are going to last. Adoption agencies discriminate against older prospective parents. One of the reasons for this is that it is best both parents are alive until the child is an adult. A couple of 45 year olds may live longer than a couple of 30 year olds. However, this is not likely. No one will seriously suggest older couples be banned from having children. However it make since for adoption agencies play the percentages.
The same logic applies to separation. Children are more at risk when left with one parent though death or separation. In the case of heterosexual women the children are more at risk of physical and sexual abuse from her new partner than their adoptive father. In the case of a homosexual sexual couple boys would be a very much more risk from any knew partner. I not say all homosexuals are extremely promiscuous but a hell of a lot of them are. This is not the main reason for opposing homosexual adoption but it would be high on the list.
August 20th, 2009 at 12:41 pm
@DPF: “I do believe that it is important for a child to have both a male and female adult in their lives, and the ideal circumstance is that the prospective parents are a male and female married (or civilly united) to each other.”
The ‘nuclear family’ is very much a social construct that has not been best practice at all times and in all places. A stable adult or unit of adults who love and care for the child is far more important than any artificial standard regarding gender or sexual orientation of the parents.
August 20th, 2009 at 12:47 pm
Shit, when will the fags leave it out? This has to be the silliest call by a judge, this is not America where activist judges create law out of thin air from the bench.
Childrens interests will not be served by going down this route, major paedophile territory here.
And why do the faggy’s feel they have to ‘have it all’ anyway. They need psychological help not children to adopt then prey on. Siiiiiccckkkkkk!!!!!
August 20th, 2009 at 12:58 pm
@Dazzaman – were you aware that paedophiles are not generally homosexuals of either gender ?
Have you forgotten this wonderful example of christian rectitude and kiddy fucking:
“Disgraced moral campaigner Graham Capill has lost his right to practice law and been ordered to pay costs of more than $3000 at a disciplinary hearing in Christchurch today. ”
I suspect he may not be an isolated example of religious hypocrisy due to the unnatural suppression of sexuality that is an integral part of all major religions.
August 20th, 2009 at 1:11 pm
Agree with Chuck. The length of time most homosexual couples stay together is very short and it cannot be in the best interests of the child to give them to such a transient relationship.
There is obviously going to be a long march through the institutions to get some sense back into our judiciary after 9 long years of the homosexually obsessed left.
Dumb- thank you for your posting and indeed name of such glaring vulgarity that I am almost struck dumb. Please think about changing your name to something we can take seriously and also try to be a little less vulgar in your remarks-would be much appreciated.
August 20th, 2009 at 1:18 pm
@Scott – “The length of time most homosexual couples stay together is very short and it cannot be in the best interests of the child to give them to such a transient relationship.”
Really ? What do you base that assertion on ?
Have a look at the DPB numbers and see just how long many heterosexual couples stay together.
Presumably a gay couple like a straight couple would have to prove relationship stability to adopt a child. Lesbian couples who can use artificial insemination or a male sperm donor presumably are no different from heterosexual couples in making the decision to breed.
August 20th, 2009 at 1:21 pm
No I haven’t you dumb fuck! LOL He got what he deserved…..and who mentioned Christians anyway? I’m sure someone with the time & inclination would look up figures suggesting that faggy’s are FAR more prone to kiddy fucking then just about any other group!!! I don’t have the time & frankly, my position is much stronger then yours which is sick & perverted. heehee
And you would increase the incidence of kiddy fucking by putting kids into paedophile homo’s homes? You are both dumb & sick!
August 20th, 2009 at 1:34 pm
Hey Dumb F*8#k 4 Justice 12:41 pm,
“The ‘nuclear family’ is very much a social construct that has not been best practice at all times and in all places. A stable adult or unit of adults who love and care for the child is far more important than any artificial standard regarding gender or sexual orientation of the parents.”
Ever heard of NAMBLA?
By the way, it stands for North American Man Boy Love Association.
I’m pretty sure being a homosexual pedofile is pre-requisite for membership.
So provided the underage boy ‘consents’ you would no doubt also view this as an acceptable ‘family model’? And in fact no less of a “social construct” than the [currently] accepted ‘nuclear family’?
August 20th, 2009 at 1:36 pm
@Dazzaman “I don’t have the time & frankly, my position is much stronger then yours which is sick & perverted. heehee”
With thinking like that you may wish to ponder the possibility that you are a latent homosexual: “Psychoanalysts use the concept of repressed or latent homosexuality to explain the emotional malaise and irrational attitudes exhibited by individuals who feel guilty about their erotic interests and struggle to deny and repress homosexual impulses.”
August 20th, 2009 at 1:37 pm
Scott – if my name was Bryan Spondre, I would use a pseudonym as well
His feud with Dad4Justice has been very public this week.
August 20th, 2009 at 1:39 pm
“His feud with Dad4Justice has been very public this week.”
Where?
August 20th, 2009 at 1:41 pm
@Inventory2 – dealing with dad4justice requires the use of a full body condom. Then again having a look at his profile picture it appears that Peter Burns already wears one.
August 20th, 2009 at 1:44 pm
Big bruv – No Minister and Facebook
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=144937049111&ref=mf
August 20th, 2009 at 1:46 pm
@Kris K: “Ever heard of NAMBLA?”
Yes and
a) What relevance does a North American organisation have to New Zealand ?
b) Surely adoption authorities would include police checks in their vetting process ?
August 20th, 2009 at 1:47 pm
@DF4J – good comeback!
August 20th, 2009 at 1:47 pm
Cheers IV2
This place is far better since D4J left, if only we could get rid of Phool now.
August 20th, 2009 at 1:47 pm
Ah, the famous “veil of fagnorance”.
August 20th, 2009 at 2:01 pm
@Ryan – agreed totally ignorant.
Children are tabula rasa – they have no preconceptions and only need to be loved by whoever their parents are.
August 20th, 2009 at 2:05 pm
Whomever. NO CHILDREN FOR YOU.
August 20th, 2009 at 2:06 pm
@Ryan – why not ?
August 20th, 2009 at 2:11 pm
100% of convicted child abusers in New Zealand don’t use the word “whom” correctly.
You can’t argue with that.
It’s science.
August 20th, 2009 at 2:28 pm
@Ryan – I see you using satire to cover your own anxiety around the issue of child abuse. Sure child sexual abuse and homosexuality are topics that cause many people embarrassment ( all those images of men sucking each others dicks and licking cum of each others faces probably) but we have to be able to discuss it in a mature way.
Why does it cause you anxiety ?
August 20th, 2009 at 2:30 pm
I find that satirizing the views of those who oppose gay adoption is an effective way of demonstrating the folly of their arguments.
Why are you so opposed to gay adoption?
August 20th, 2009 at 2:42 pm
@Ryan _ I am not opposed to gay adoption !!!! You must be confusing me with my name sake – “dad4justice”. I am big supporter of gay adoption.
August 20th, 2009 at 2:44 pm
Ohhhh, sorry. I thought we were both pretending to hilariously misunderstand each other’s points. Guess it was just me.
August 20th, 2009 at 2:46 pm
No,no it was me I was at fault
I have no sense of humour. Welcome fellow traveller !!!
August 20th, 2009 at 2:54 pm
I’ve been here for aaaaaages.
You know, I had a drink with Dad4Justice a few months ago. He’s a pretty nice fellow. Had a good chat. Obviously didn’t agree on all that much, but agreed on some things, and had a few nice beers. Everyone who argues on Kiwiblog should sit down and have a nice beer.
Nice.
That’s four times now I’ve said “nice”.
The real question is: Are Dazzaman and Getstaffed serious, or are they themselves being hilarious?
August 20th, 2009 at 2:58 pm
Given the comments on here, no wonder kids at school or bullied for being different. The values you are obviously instilling in your kids as you raise them are not about tolerance, are not about acceptance. No wonder a kid couldn’t be raised properly in homosexual family … but then the question is raised – if you are teaching your kids this way, is this the best environment for them to grow up in? Or are we breeding another Generation of Red Necks with acceptance only for the “norm”.
Comments are raised about Homosexual relationships being more violent/transient/disruptive, yet we don’t see the Maori/Polyneasians being banned from Adoption because their is a greater chance for Domestic Disputes and Abuse. Why should we be a nanny state and exclude homosexual couples from adopting a child. They are going to be vetted and go through the exact same process – let it be up to the mother. We are so against Government controlling us and telling us how to raise our children from smacking through to Folic Acid in our Bread – yet you are right up there for Nanny State Controls when they suit your own bias. Come on – where is your tolerance/acceptance.
Yes there are sickos out there… Guess what – they are both Homosexual and Hetrosexual. There is a process which ensures they are vetted out of the final selection… but being Homosexual doesnt mean you are a sicko.
For the safety and the right upbringing for our kids you say they need to be in a family with a mother and father, who are committed to each other – are you then going to enforce a law that removes all children from Single Parent situations, from all families where there has been a history of violence or from parents deemed unacceptable? No you arent – because they have they have the privilage of being hetrosexual. Yet you are instantly against homosexuals, who for all intents and purposes could be in a better and stronger relationship.
Let the process be open to all – after all we are a country with roots of tolerance and acceptance. Let the Birth Mother have a right to choose between homosexual and heterosexual couples.
August 20th, 2009 at 2:59 pm
Ryan – um you would probably have to consult a psychic or a media psychologist.
Good question though. Let me know if you find out ?
August 20th, 2009 at 3:02 pm
Get Nigel Latta on the phone. Tell him there’s a camera involved and he’ll materialise like the Candyman.
August 20th, 2009 at 3:11 pm
Dazzaman, excellent comment at 1:21 pm. I will do my best to explain to DF4J why children would be at risk. I will not bother with Google but try to explain things simply.
First, I agree that more children are molested by heterosexuals than homosexuals. It is also true more children are murdered by Europeans than Maori. In both cases we have to take into account the numbers of each group in the general population. In the case of Maori the offending in the example above is at a ration of about 2 to 1. It is a little more difficult as exact figure in the case of homosexual offending as it is hard to get their exact number in the community. This is because it is even hard to define who is a homosexual accurately. Would it include a young person who experimented briefly out of curiosity? In any case the ratio would be much higher than 2 to 1.
Roughly 1 in four girls and 1 in 7 boys are sexually abused before they are adults. Most of the girls would be sexually abused by men and most of the boys would be abused by men. We could discount the female abusers without changing the results much. It should be clear from that that homosexuals offend at a rate greatly disproportionate to their numbers in the population.
The big issue with adoption and sexual abuse is not just the risk from the adoptive parent. It does exist as it does with heterosexuals who are biological parents. The worry is hangers on. If a heterosexual couple adopt a boy and they split up or the husband dies the boy is not at a very great risk of being abused by the women’s new partner or just acquaintances. The same would not apply to a homosexual couple after on dies or leave. Homosexuals are far more likely to engage in intergenerational sex whether illegal or just legal. If a 40 year old heterosexual male was invited to a dinner party and brought a 16 year old girl there would be a lot of people not very impressed. Homosexuals have different attitude.
I hope this is not too difficult for you to follow DF4J.
Let me ask some of the liberals who have a teenage boy between 13 and 16 if they would be happy for him to spend the weekend with a boy who was adopted by a couple of homosexuals?
August 20th, 2009 at 3:16 pm
@Chuck Bird – surely by your logic we should sterilize Maori because they feature more highly in infanticide statistics ?
August 20th, 2009 at 3:18 pm
Crikey! Not the ones you’ve apparently been hanging out with!
August 20th, 2009 at 3:37 pm
Dumb
Why are you such a fan of gay adoption?
Research proves that gay adoption is not ideal for kids, or does that not matter to you?
August 20th, 2009 at 3:43 pm
BB – in case you haven’t noticed ‘ideal’ is not the current benchmark either… Not two parents, homo or hetero sexual are ever going to be ideal. Why exclude an entire class of people who could be equally good for a child on the merits? Allow a case by case decision to be made as we do for hetero couples/ singles…
August 20th, 2009 at 3:48 pm
I don’t know the process for adoption. What part does a Judge play and Why?..If no part, then what is this Von Daddleson character doing sticking his oar in. Is he one of the political appointments of the last administration so placed to pursue the position he advocates. He is in my opinion not of a suitable philosophy to be adjudicating on Family Issues.
August 20th, 2009 at 3:55 pm
Fletch 11:23 am,
From the report you quoted:
“Among children raised by same-sex couples, the report notes a significant increase in low self-esteem, stress, confusion regarding sexual identity, an increase in mental illness, drug use, promiscuity, STD’s, and homosexual behaviour, amongst others. Furthermore, the report shows that statistics have brought to light the fact that same-sex relationships betray a much higher instance of separation and break-up than heterosexual relationships, increasing the likelihood that the child will experience familial instability.”
Ignoring for the moment that we’re talking about children raised by same-sex couples.
If children were raised in an environment where the above described was the outcome for those children we would accuse that ‘environment’ of negligent child abuse. That these are in fact the results for children raised by same-sex ‘parents’ seems to be ignored by those pushing this ‘adoption by homosexuals’ agenda. Why anyone would legitimately even propose this law change when clearly the interests of the children seems not to even be an issue; but rather the agenda is the further ‘normalisation’ of homosexuality.
August 20th, 2009 at 3:59 pm
Kris K – your last comments kind of reminds me of the normalcy of womans rights, or the rights of black people…. how dare they try and suggest that you are not superior…
August 20th, 2009 at 3:59 pm
@BB – as Not1 notes many heterosexual couples are far from ideal.
@Chuck Bird – surely by your logic we should sterilize Maori because they feature more highly in infanticide statistics ?
August 20th, 2009 at 4:01 pm
Not1
You exclude an entire class of people because the proof is already there that says kids do far better with a mum and dad.
Why can’t people grasp this, it is not about gay rights, it is not discrimination, it is what is best for the kids.
August 20th, 2009 at 4:01 pm
Does anyone know this von Dadelszen’s motivation?
August 20th, 2009 at 4:02 pm
“Research proves that gay adoption is not ideal for kids, or does that not matter to you?”
- rersearch probably proves that being born into a family of P-addicts is less than but we don’t sterilize drug addicts or the mentally incompetent do we ?
If we did steralise the mentally incompetent there would be no Labour voters so perhaps it is a good idea
August 20th, 2009 at 4:02 pm
Dumb
Less than ideal Hetro couples DO NOT get to adopt kids, you chaps really need to find another straw man.
August 20th, 2009 at 4:05 pm
“I do believe that it is important for a child to have both a male and female adult in their lives…”
Most children have both sexes in their lives. Not many live in all-female or all-male communes. But I wonder, from your statement DPF, what you think then of single parents with young kids. What if the best thing for the child is for the parent to get out of whatever situation they are in and go it alone? That can be better sometimes than having a female or male in the child’s life just for the sake of it.
August 20th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
The research I’ve found – for instance, from the American Psychological Association http://www.psych.org/Departments/EDU/Library/APAOfficialDocumentsandRelated/PositionStatements/200214.aspx, or the AMA (a bit hard to link directly to on the AMA site, but if you google the AMA reference number: H-60.940 you should find it).
All seems to say that there’s really no difference between children of same gender parents or different gender parents.
August 20th, 2009 at 4:08 pm
OK, hands up, how many of you ‘experts’ on homosexuality are genuine poo pushers or pillow biters ? Wanking another guy in the shower after gym class does NOT count
August 20th, 2009 at 4:10 pm
Not1, I am sure there is the odd 15 year old that drives maturely. It would be impossible to identify which ones.
How can one check thing out on a case by case basis? Do the ask a couple are you going to be together in 20 years time?
August 20th, 2009 at 4:18 pm
NOt1tocommentoften 3:59 pm,
“Kris K – your last comments kind of reminds me of the normalcy of womans rights, or the rights of black people…. how dare they try and suggest that you are not superior…”
Of course both ‘women’ and ‘black people’ are the result of normal sexual relations between a man and a woman. The fact that homos are not even able to reproduce, and NEVER in world history has a child had two biological homo parents, shows that homosexuality never was, is not now, and never will be ‘normal’, despite your attempts to normalise it.
If homos can’t ‘breed’ naturally why would we accept that they have any right to adopt those that they cannot produce naturally?
August 20th, 2009 at 4:23 pm
Don’t most straight couples adopt because they cannot produce naturally?
August 20th, 2009 at 4:27 pm
Dumb Fuck 4 Justice (222) 4:08 pm,
“OK, hands up, how many of you ‘experts’ on homosexuality are genuine poo pushers or pillow biters ?”
So, using your analogy one has to be a murderer, rapist, pedofile, Nazi, slave owner, etc to know that ALL of these things are wrong?
I don’t take drugs either, so I guess I have no right to say that if you take them you’ll stuff your life up?
Another strawman argument.
August 20th, 2009 at 4:27 pm
If homos can’t ‘breed’ naturally why would we accept that they have any right to adopt those that they cannot produce naturally?
What about heterosexuals couples who suffer the some fate Kris? Ban them too?
August 20th, 2009 at 4:35 pm
NOt1tocommentoften 4:27 pm,
‘If homos can’t ‘breed’ naturally why would we accept that they have any right to adopt those that they cannot produce naturally?’
“What about heterosexuals couples who suffer the some fate Kris? Ban them too?”
Hey strawman. Slight difference: most heteros can breed, NO homos can breed.
August 20th, 2009 at 4:35 pm
@KrisK – #FAIL:
a) Lesbian couples are able to ‘breed normally’ using your lovely turn of phrase. Either using professional fertility services or finding a friendly male friend to whack off into a clean Marmite jar.
b) Having sex with an adult of the same sex is completely normal behavior and cannot be included in your list of abhorrent behaviors.
Would be interesting to see where you drawn the line on normal sexual activity Kris K. For example do you consider a man performing anal sex on a woman acceptable ?
August 20th, 2009 at 4:40 pm
… although I’m beginning to think that both NOt1tocommentoften and Dumb Schmuck 4 Justice may in fact be the first two results of homosexual ‘conception’. Not quite the immaculate conception, but two little ‘miracles’ nonetheless.
August 20th, 2009 at 4:41 pm
@Kris K – ad hominem attack. We win – you lose – suck my dick
August 20th, 2009 at 4:43 pm
Dumb
Are you on some sort of crusade to see how many blogs you can be banned from in a week?
August 20th, 2009 at 4:44 pm
Dumb Fuck 4 Justice 4:35 pm,
“@KrisK – #FAIL:
a) Lesbian couples are able to ‘breed normally’ ”
Really? Modern science disagrees with you I think. Can you cite any examples of two biological lesbian mothers please.
Strawman: FAIL.
August 20th, 2009 at 4:49 pm
@Kris K – it is exactly the same as heterosexual couple where the male partner is infertile.
I know a heterosexual couple that used the services of a close friend to provide viable sperm.
I also know a lesbian couple that used the services of a close friend to provide viable sperm.
See the similarity ?
August 20th, 2009 at 4:50 pm
@big bruv – how did you guess ?
August 20th, 2009 at 4:59 pm
Dumb Schmuck 4 Justice 4:50 pm,
Most heteros can breed, NO homos can breed.
See the DIS-similarity?
August 20th, 2009 at 5:03 pm
@Kris K – lets take this step by step.
1) I have sex with a woman who is a lesbian i.e. a homosexual.
2) She gets pregnant and gives birth to a baby.
3) A homosexual has given birth to a baby.
Have you ever had sex with a lesbian Kris ?
August 20th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
Dumb Fuck 4 Justice 5:03 pm,
@Dumb Schmuck – lets take this step by step.
1) A woman has sex with a woman who is a lesbian i.e. a homosexual.
2) She doesn’t get pregnant and doesn’t give birth to a baby.
3) A homosexual hasn’t given birth to a baby.
August 20th, 2009 at 5:15 pm
@Kris K – and your point is ?
Just because a lesbian has sex with a man either heterosexual or homosexual doesn’t change the fact that she is a lesbian. Trust me I have been there done that ( and a lot of fun it was too. In fact it was two lesbians so I am twice as right
)
August 20th, 2009 at 5:20 pm
The Natural Parents should be allowed to choose who should and who should not be parents of their child. If the natural parents think their child will be just fine with a gay couple, this should be permitted by law. Otherwise its just another example of the state knowing better than everybody else.
August 20th, 2009 at 5:24 pm
@Jcw – agreed.
August 20th, 2009 at 5:26 pm
Dumb Schmuck 4 Justice 5:15 pm,
Which just further shows that homos [your two lesbian friends] are nothing more than hedonistic, promiscuous, perverts and not fit to raise children, let alone adopt someone elses.
August 20th, 2009 at 5:32 pm
Is it at all relevant that everyone here is missing the point? Gay men and women already can adopt in NZ. And they already do with some frequency. As individuals. The problem is that a “partner” of a individual adoptor (i.e. person with whom they are in a civil union, or de facto relationship) cannot do so. All the partner can get is a guardianship order. Which means you have a child growing up with one member of the partnership recognised as a “parent” in law, the other merely recognised as a “guardian”.
What the judge is calling for is a change in the law that would allow BOTH members of the partnership to have full parental status. As happens when married couples adopt.
So all this hysteria about “gays not being good parents” is, quite frankly, irrelevant. The horse has bolted. You’re just scrawling venom on an open barn door.
August 20th, 2009 at 5:46 pm
AG 5:32 pm,
Sorry AG, but morals trumps man-made laws everty time.
Homosexuality may be ‘legal’, but that doesn’t make it ‘right’.
The fact that most homos are hedonistic, promiscuous perverts, and therefore will not provide a good environment to raise children in, is reason enough that they be not able to adopt children.
We should ALSO prevent homos having access to adoption by playing the ‘individual’ card as well.
August 20th, 2009 at 5:59 pm
Kris,
You’re funny. Keep up the laughs.
Alternatively, you could take yourself off to Saudi Arabia, where they REALLY apply gods law.
August 20th, 2009 at 6:06 pm
… not my God, AG.
August 20th, 2009 at 6:06 pm
Fletch 11:23 am,
“Among children raised by same-sex couples, the report notes a significant increase in low self-esteem, stress, confusion regarding sexual identity, an increase in mental illness, drug use, promiscuity, STD’s, and homosexual behaviour, amongst others. Furthermore, the report shows that statistics have brought to light the fact that same-sex relationships betray a much higher instance of separation and break-up than heterosexual relationships, increasing the likelihood that the child will experience familial instability.”
August 20th, 2009 at 6:09 pm
AG, I guess you think kiddy f*ckers are funny as well?
August 20th, 2009 at 6:36 pm
Kris K,
oops. Now you’re going to hell. Or whatever the muslim version is. That’s the problem with betting on the wrong horse.
Meanwhile, your fixation on child sexual abuse makes me wonder whether you either require counseling for past experiences, or a visit from the police to check your computer hard drive.
August 20th, 2009 at 7:15 pm
… and AG unsurprisingly reverts to ad hominem attacks.
Rather than me having a “fixation on child sexual abuse”, my view that we should prevent homos from adopting children will actually reduce the likelihood of pedofiles adopting and abusing children ‘in their care’. The fact that you support ‘homosexual adoption’ reveals that it is in fact you that condones [and finds funny] child sexual abuse.
August 20th, 2009 at 7:21 pm
Problem is where are all the kids going to come from? Its not like we have a surplus of kids up for adoption in NZ, hell even straight married couples can’t adopt in NZ.
Then we have all the crazy laws where a junky mum has so many days after the birth to change her mind or requirements to keep the kid in contact with the birth family (even if they are the cause of the kids abuse and learning difficulties).
And of course the left wing social workers who tell single mums they must keep the baby.
Sort the above shit out and then worry about gay adoption.
August 20th, 2009 at 7:38 pm
Southern Raider 7:21 pm,
“Problem is where are all the kids going to come from? Its not like we have a surplus of kids up for adoption in NZ, hell even straight married couples can’t adopt in NZ.”
Too true. We abort over 18,000 children each year. And then ‘pay’ unwed mothers via the DPB to have multiple kids to multiple men where they are viewed as little more than a ‘meal ticket’. And then wonder why there are so few children available for adoption.
Of course “gay adoption” will just allow for more ’screwed up kids’ than we already have in society.
August 20th, 2009 at 7:39 pm
Kris K,
You’ll be providing some research to back up those claims, right? Otherwise you come across as a homophobic moron. Just saying.
Southern Raider,
“Then we have all the … requirements to keep the kid in contact with the birth family (even if they are the cause of the kids abuse and learning difficulties).”
You’ll be providing a citation to that “requirement”, right? Otherwise you come across as a liar. Just saying.
August 20th, 2009 at 7:41 pm
And there we have Kris K’s great idea. Poor women can be breeding stock for richer childless couples. It’s what Jesus would want. Read the bible.
August 20th, 2009 at 7:58 pm
AG 7:39 pm,
“Kris K,
You’ll be providing some research to back up those claims, right? Otherwise you come across as a homophobic moron. Just saying.”
Has someone done a study regarding your support of ‘homosexual adoption’? Let me at it. I haven’t done a good pie chart in ages.
“And there we have Kris K’s great idea. Poor women can be breeding stock for richer childless couples. It’s what Jesus would want. Read the bible.”
I really can’t take credit for socialist policy where NZ pays unwed mothers via the DPB. And regarding Jesus being a socialist; do you have a verse for that?
August 20th, 2009 at 7:59 pm
“The fact that most homos are hedonistic, promiscuous perverts”
i’m curious, kris,
which homos aren’t perverts, in
your dark little mind?
August 20th, 2009 at 8:03 pm
AG my local paper has adverts for foster children every week with comments like “Sam has learning difficulties and has suffered previous abuse that has caused behavioural problems” followed by “foster parents must allow regular contact with the birth family”.
Got any idea who caused the learning difficulties or abuse? the tooth fairy.
By the way good to see the anti-smacking bill is working. Another two dead kids in a week.
For the record I have no problem with gay adoption. They would most probably do a much better job than half of the hetro couples in NZ. My problem is these left wing wankers who lose sight of the big picture and focus on the small issues.
August 20th, 2009 at 8:05 pm
@Kris K : You sound rather jealous of all these lucky homosexualks having all this great sex . Doesn’t your church practice group sex ? Perhaps you should us at the Tantric Cultural Club; orgasms for everyone
August 20th, 2009 at 8:09 pm
@Kris K : you appear to have missed the bit where santa , the tooth fairy & god were pronounced dead and we all went to the funeral.
August 20th, 2009 at 8:23 pm
Haiku Dave 7:59 pm,
“i’m curious, kris, which homos aren’t perverts, in your dark little mind?”
You’ve ‘outed’ me Dave [now I'll have to tell mum and dad]; homosexuality is a perversion. Hence the reason homos shouldn’t be able to adopt. Happy now?
August 20th, 2009 at 9:05 pm
kris, is all of your
vitriol a cry for help,
or for some man meat?
August 20th, 2009 at 9:18 pm
To find out what it is like to have a homosexual parent read “Out from under” by Dawn Stefanowicz
http://www.dawnstefanowicz.com/
August 20th, 2009 at 9:32 pm
Chuck – that site made me laugh. What’s your point? How many kids has been messed up by uncaring, unloving parents who don’t have their children’s best interests at heart… This is nothing new. If you took out all the references to homosexuality in the site it would read like the problems many other children and young people face growing up.
August 20th, 2009 at 9:54 pm
themorgan said –
That all depends on who does the reports, I guess –
August 20th, 2009 at 9:56 pm
thats quite irrelevant chuck, we’re talking about gay couples adopting not a single gay parent drifting from partner to partner and engaging in destructive behaviour quite separate from his sexualit – and its not like this is about single gay parents adopting anyway
http://www.cnn.com/2009/LIVING/wayoflife/06/28/gayby/index.html
August 20th, 2009 at 10:02 pm
NOt1tocommentoften, you should read the book. Do most heterosexual fathers sexually abuse their daughters and sons?
August 20th, 2009 at 10:13 pm
Chuck: what makes you so certain that most homosexual fathers sexually abuse their daughters and sons?
August 20th, 2009 at 10:20 pm
Fletch,
All the reports purporting to show scientific facts are carried out by … scientists. Hence, they must be biased and not believed. Right?
Alternatively, what are we to make of a report from a conservative christian group claiming that reports from individuals or groups with a vested interest in the outcome of the debate are untrustworthy, given the strong vested interest the group has in the outcome of the debate? It’s the old “all Cretian’s are liars – believe me, I’m from Crete” paradox.
Southern Raider,
“AG my local paper has adverts for foster children every week with comments like “Sam has learning difficulties and has suffered previous abuse that has caused behavioural problems” followed by “foster parents must allow regular contact with the birth family”.
Perhaps you should learn the difference between “adoption” and “foster care” before commenting? It helps to know what you are talking about.
Kris K,
“And regarding Jesus being a socialist; do you have a verse for that?”
I’ve no idea what modern day political philosophy Jesus would ascribe to. Nor do I care. I don’t regard 2000 year old desert tribes as providing the touchstone for how to live today. But as you seem to, I reaffirm my point … get thee to Saudi Arabia.
August 20th, 2009 at 10:24 pm
Oh … and Chuck Bird … to find out what it is like to be adopted by a straight person, read/watch “Mommy Dearest” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mommie_Dearest). Seeing as one example proves an entire point and all, I guess we’ll be banning all forms of adoption altogether.
August 20th, 2009 at 10:27 pm
The point I was making is that no heterosexual fathers sexually abuses their daughters and sons?
This guy did. The issue is about identifying and minimizing risk. You will get some children raised by lesbians supporting the situation. The gay lobby are very good at cherry picking.
There is a shortage of children up for adoption. There are a surplus of married couple who wish to adopt. The odds are that children raised by two married parents will fare better. There are exceptions of course.
August 20th, 2009 at 10:30 pm
Your beliefs are no reason to deny the natural parents the choice as to whom adopts their son and or daughter.
August 20th, 2009 at 10:36 pm
No, no, no.
All my peers as a child, had their fathers manning machine guns in the trenches.
Mine too of course !!.
How would you like to have to tell your school mates, ” Both my fathers love me ” .
YEAH RIGHT !!.
August 20th, 2009 at 10:53 pm
Queers. Dikes. Call it what you will..
No problem.. Keep it to themselves.
Do not thrust it upon some totally un-prepared young person.
August 21st, 2009 at 12:21 am
Ahhhh gay rights… forever a controversial issue, one that’ll never be fulfilled without controversy from both sides.
For the record I truly don’t know my actual sexuality – I’m probably bi. We have a running joke in our family that gay men make perfect husbands. Dunno if its true or not but I digress.
An unwanted child should have a balanced influence from both genders, that is a mother and a father. They also need to be in a long fulfilling relationship (in a marriage or civil union), have good jobs as well AND an absence of a criminal record.
That said, gays should be allowed to adopt as long as they have their relationship set in stone (that is a civil union) and there is no other traditional couple that is more capable of raising the child. It should not be determined by the state. It makes me think of a phrase – “Social conservatives regulate the bedroom, Social liberals regulate everything else.”
It should be easy for any consenting couple but unfortunately you still have the social stigma of being gay and a child that may be raised by a gay couple will be continuously harassed by “normal” kids until they become suicidal. As much as I would love to change this, it will not go away, it’s a fact of life LGBT people will have to get used to.
August 21st, 2009 at 10:19 am
Hey Kris just because your ability to determine what is right and wrong is so impaired you have to rely on a couple of lines written in a book thousands of years ago to determine what you think it is do not believe that the rest of us who can see the absolute redicolousness of such a path of reasoning need to be constrained to such a redicolous outcome.
I have sympothy for arguments such as BB and co who argue best interests of the child – which I am not sure is entirely accurate but thats by the by – but your argument that homosexuality is immoral, well you have more in common with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad than anyone who is slightly enlightened.
August 21st, 2009 at 1:14 pm
Jeff83 [August 21st, 10:19 am],
It sounds like it is you, Jeff, that lacks the ability to determine the difference between right and wrong. Being adrift in a sea of moral relativism must be both scary and unpredictable. And who knows what next week may bring – maybe a law change where one is able to ‘marry’ [or is that civil union now] the ‘family pet’. After all, bestiality is outlawed in the Bible too, and therefore it must be acceptable by your reasoning. Or am I just being “redicolous”.
If you are an example of someone who is even “slightly enlightened”, then I would hate to meet with someone that holds your philosophical base who has attained full ‘enlightenment’.
[NB a little punctuation in your comment would help others to better understand and comprehend any points you may be attempting to make. May I suggest commas and full stops for now; we'll worry about colons and semi colons next time.]
August 21st, 2009 at 1:24 pm
Stop calling homosexuals “gays”; it detracts from what they are, and it debases the language.
If lezzies are happy being called lesbians, why do poofs have so much trouble being called homosexuals?
August 21st, 2009 at 1:28 pm
Kris, what do you say to those people who consider Christianity to be a perversion, and thus Christians shouldn’t be able to adopt?
August 21st, 2009 at 1:33 pm
Kris,
Do you have any reason for believing “marrying pets” is going to happen?
August 21st, 2009 at 1:48 pm
MyNameIsJack [August 21st, 2009 at 1:24 pm],
“Stop calling homosexuals “gays”; it detracts from what they are, and it debases the language.
If lezzies are happy being called lesbians, why do poofs have so much trouble being called homosexuals?”
Absolutely agree Jack. I tend to use ‘homosexual’ for both the male and female variants [no one can accuse me of not being 'inclusive'].
But if just considering male homos, I prefer to use the biblical term ’sodomite’. It is both descriptive and has a ‘better’ ring to it.
August 21st, 2009 at 1:56 pm
Ryan Sproull August 21st, 2009 at 1:28 & 1:33 pm],
“Kris, what do you say to those people who consider Christianity to be a perversion, and thus Christians shouldn’t be able to adopt?”
Must say I don’t know any personally. Do you? But if I did happen to cross swords I would probably give them the gospel, and remind them that their existence is reliant on a creator God.
“Do you have any reason for believing “marrying pets” is going to happen?”
I didn’t think decriminalising Homosexuality back in 1986 was going to happen either, but it did. Nothing in this perverted world surprises me anymore.
August 21st, 2009 at 3:02 pm
I don’t know any personally, but I have read people’s suggestions that raising kids Christian is a form of child abuse. My point is that your position is not democratic, and this is a democracy. There is no place in its laws for either your anti-homosexuality nor another’s anti-Christianity. Hold the opinions, by all means, but unless you advocate a theocracy, with citizens being forced to live in accordance with the rules of one religion over others, your desire for the state enforcement of anti-homosexuality is not consistent with democracy.
You must have at least been aware before 1986 that there were those who wanted homosexuality decriminalised. I can’t think of anyone proposing marriage between humans and pets – nor can I particularly imagine what that would even mean.
August 21st, 2009 at 5:30 pm
Ryan Sproull [August 21st, 2009 at 3:02 pm],
I think you’ll find that most, if not all, truly democratic countries were originally founded upon Judeo-Christian values as espoused in the Old Testament/Bible.
Of course, as most of those same countries have now discarded that heritage, they now find themselves drowning in a sea of moral relativism with nothing to anchor themselves to. The classic NZ example being the decriminalising of homosexuality. Prior to 1986 our ‘democracy’ believed homosexuality to be wrong and unnatural.
There is a strong parallel between what a society is founded upon and the ‘laws’ and what is acceptable behaviour/beliefs within that same society. The fact that in several countries it is now a ‘hate crime’ to state that homosexuality is wrong/unnatural is a direct result of democracy falling apart at the seams, and of it having no moral foundation. So while it has become increasingly acceptable to say that homosexuality is just another ‘lifestyle’, we now persecute those that voice any opposition to it.
So much for democracy.
For example, in Canada I think it was, a pastor preached a sermon in his church where he mentioned that homosexuality was a sin. This wasn’t even street preaching, but in his own church; preaching to ‘the converted’. Someone heard about it, brought a lawsuit, and this same pastor is now serving time for his ‘hate crime’. As I said before; nothing surprises me any more Ryan.
August 21st, 2009 at 5:43 pm
… and Ryan,
“You must have at least been aware before 1986 that there were those who wanted homosexuality decriminalised. I can’t think of anyone proposing marriage between humans and pets – nor can I particularly imagine what that would even mean.”
In your version of democracy there are no checks and balances; all that is required are enough hands raised, and this doesn’t even have to be a majority eg the homosexual law reform. If enough people wanted to ‘marry’ the ‘family dog’ and raised their hands resulting in a law change, then this too could become ‘legal’. The thing is Ryan, does that make it right? And how would you tell?
August 21st, 2009 at 6:39 pm
Kris K: “But if just considering male homos, I prefer to use the biblical term ’sodomite’. It is both descriptive and has a ‘better’ ring to it.”
i bet you’ve got a
nice ‘ring’ to you, kris; that’s what
your boyfriend told me
August 21st, 2009 at 7:03 pm
kris k. met that sodomite ..
..one moonlite-night..
upon sighting ‘the k-ring’..the sodomite ..
gasped with delight..
..and said..bring me that thing..
..it looks oh! so tight..
..i will make it sing..
..and make k bow to my might…
and so it came to pass..
upon that moonlight night..
rent with screams and moans..
when kris k’s dreams all came true..
..and he met his (secretly) yearned for..
..sodomite..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 21st, 2009 at 7:29 pm
amen phil, nothing
more annoying than a self
loathing pole smoker
August 21st, 2009 at 7:32 pm
Could someone please explain to me why anybody has a “right” to have a child?
August 24th, 2009 at 11:14 pm
“Could someone please explain to me why anybody has a “right” to have a child?”
It’s not about that – nobody has the right to have a child. This is about an illegal ban based on an arbitrary standard that has no bearing in the truth of adoption. Gay couples should have no more rights than straight couples, what is being asked is that gay couples have equal privileges to straight couples and nobody thus far has been able to put forward a secular, sound case as to why the ban should remain.