Nats vote for same sex adoption

May 26th, 2012 at 1:24 pm by David Farrar

Whale Oil blogs that a remit was put to the Party’s Northern Regional Conference by the Young Nationals:

That the National Party legalise adoption for those who have entered into a civil union partnership.

The remit was passed by the conference and will now be considered for debate at the overall party conference in July.

I’m really pleased that the delegates at the Northern Conference voted in favour of the remit. The outcome reflects well on them and the party.

 

Tags: ,

134 Responses to “Nats vote for same sex adoption”

  1. tvb (4,553 comments) says:

    NZers and the National Party have come a long way on gay rights. There are some quite good role models around now and society’s attitudes have softened including the Salvation Army. There are plenty of trashy gay men around but fortunately they are not that visible.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. krazykiwi (8,040 comments) says:

    I am totally opposed to this. Adoption is not a ‘right’ for any person or couple. In contrast, a child has a right to an optimum environment to be raised, that being with a mother and father.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. gazzmaniac (2,306 comments) says:

    krazykiwi – gay adoption is (IMHO) a shitload better than kids being shuffled round foster houses for their whole childhood, and will probably have a better outcome.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. tvb (4,553 comments) says:

    There is no evidence whatsoever gay parents are bad parents. I know many gay parents and their kids are very well adjusted and they love their children dearly. People who think the world will end with this and other measures need to consider whether they are well adjusted and confident sexually.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. krazykiwi (8,040 comments) says:

    There is no evidence whatsoever gay parents are bad parents

    Did I say there was? No. But there is plenty of evidence that the optimum environment for kids to raised in is with their (or a) mother and father.

    [DPF: Yes, but that is a factor to be considered in adoptions, and should not be an immovable barrier.

    I am of the view that if all other things are equal, then it is better for a child to have a male and female parent. Absolutely.

    But all other things are not equal. Prospective parents will have varying standards of parental skills, literacy, health, income, housing quality, dedication to education.

    Many same sex couples will be able to provide a better environment for children, than non same sex couples. Our child abuse states are legion to that.

    Decisions on fitness to be a parent should be based on the particular circumstances of the couple, and not have a legislative ban on them being the same sex]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. gazzmaniac (2,306 comments) says:

    krazykiwi – what about the Kahui twins? Their optimal environment would have been pretty much anywhere apart from with their mother and father.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Harriet (5,200 comments) says:

    DF #

    “….I’m really pleased that the delegates at the Northern Conference voted in favour of the remit. The outcome reflects well on them and the party…”

    Bullshit !

    A quote from one noted lesbian and pro-abortion feminist, Tammy Bruce. She is also the former president of the LA chapter of the National Organisation for Women, but she is greatly alarmed by homosexual activism. This is what she says about the issue of children and the homosexual agenda:

    “Today’s gay activists have carried the campaign a step further, invading children’s lives by wrapping themselves in the banner of tolerance. It is literally the equivalent of the wolf coming to your door dressed as your grandmother.”

    She continues, “The radicals in control of the gay establishment want children in their world of moral decay, lack of self-restraint, and moral relativism. Why? How better to truly belong to the majority (when you’re really on the fringe) than by taking possession of the next generation? By targeting children, you can start indoctrinating the next generation with the false construct that gay people deserve special treatment and special laws. How else can the gay establishment actually get society to believe, borrowing from George Orwell, that gay people are indeed more equal than others? – Of course, the only way to get that idea accepted is to condition people into accepting nihilism that forbids morality and judgment.”

    ‘Tolerance’ ?

    “In the world it is called Tolerance, but in HELL it is called Despair… the sin that believes in nothing, cares for nothing, seeks to know nothing, interferes with nothing, enjoys nothing, hates nothing, finds purpose in nothing, lives for nothing, and remains alive because there is nothing for which it will die.” – Dorothy L. Sayers

    In the past society set standards and people were expected by the Church and State to live by those standards.Being careful was one such standard.

    Now the standard we are expected to adher to is to simply ‘tolerate’ anything.And if we don’t, well, we are the evil ones.

    “We all want progress, but if you’re on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; in that case, the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive.” – C.S Lewis.

    The Nats call this ‘progress’ ? – More like ‘appeasment’ to make an insecure minority ‘feel’ ‘better’ about their self denial and destructive lives.

    ‘Progress’ would really be in strengthening the Marriage act – so as to better shelter children of the next generation, who will become the protectors of that generations homosexuals, who, since time began, have been the victims of bashings and killings.And this still happens today.

    Gays can’t possably protect the next generation without confusing themselves even further, as the ‘essence’ of their lifestyle falls short of this ; their essence is to NOT procreate.They cannot possibly parent properly under that strain. And children should not be placed into that equation – as it falls short of parenting.

    Adoption is not ownership or acceptance but parenting!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. krazykiwi (8,040 comments) says:

    gazzmaniac – Do you really think citing single (or even multiple) instances likle this disproves my assertion? Really?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Aredhel777 (292 comments) says:

    This is what, your eighth post on homosexuality in three weeks, Farrar? Is that really necessary? On an issue like this nobody is going to change their minds about anything.

    It is disappointing that the Young Nats have chosen this direction. They’ll lose the Christian vote to Colin Craig.

    [DPF: It is a topical issue]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. speters (108 comments) says:

    “But there is plenty of evidence that the optimum environment for kids to raised in is with their (or a) mother and father.”

    Is there? I’m sure there is plenty of evidence that being raised by a mother and father produces better outcomes (generally, not always) than being raised by a solo parent, but I actually doubt that there is evidence that such an environment is empirically “optimum” over two same-sex parents.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. East Wellington Superhero (1,139 comments) says:

    Interesting. At a personal level this further discourages me to invest in the future of NZ. Individual sexual selfishness might now be approved by both major parties but could cement the further decline of a civil NZ. A truimph for the self-focused. A defeat for civilisation builders.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. tvb (4,553 comments) says:

    There are plenty of kids being raised in poverty in a welfare home whether the parents take food from their children’s mouths so they can smoke and drink. Adoption is a different matter where parents have to really want the children and provide a secure environment. Plenty of gay parents have straight children and indeed the gay parents are pleased their children are straight. Being gay is not an easy life and a well adjusted person does not wish it on their children as a life choice.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. krazykiwi (8,040 comments) says:

    speters – so you’re agreeing that kids being raised by a mother and father is best, and that being raised by two dads or two mums is equally as good?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. East Wellington Superhero (1,139 comments) says:

    But no doubt they’ll all pat themselves on the back tonight at the bar, and tell each other how cool and progressive they. When actually they’re just wealthy barbarians.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. AG (1,833 comments) says:

    “In contrast, a child has a right to an optimum environment to be raised, that being with a mother and father.”

    Excellent … when does the State move in and start confiscating kids from single parent families in order to fill the shortfall of childless couples wanting to adopt? Because the State has a duty to ensure every child is raised in an optimum environment, right?

    More seriously, you’ve all got the wrong end of the stick on this one. Gay people ALREADY can adopt – it’s just they can only do so on an individual and not joint basis. So, imagine a situation where a gay man is named by his nephew’s parents as that child’s guardian in their will. They then die in a car crash. There is nothing in current law to stop that gay man then adopting the nephew as his child.

    But because gay couples cannot JOINTLY adopt, if you have a gay couple who already are parenting a child (whether from one of the couple’s previous straight relationship (think Alison Mau), or born to one of the couple through surrogacy, or IVF, or the like), only the biological mother/father from that couple will be recognised as the “parent” of the child and there is no way in law for the other member of the partnership to gain full legal recognition as a “parent”. (As opposed to straight couples, where a step-parent may jointly adopt a child with her/his biological parent and thus become recognised in law as her/his “parent”.) At most the other gay partner can be a guardian of the child. Which then leads to all sorts of potential problems … imagine how it would feel in your relationship if only your partner was considered in law to be your child’s “parent”, while you were viewed in law as a second-rate “guardian” who has lesser rights to decide how the child will be raised.

    So all this change really would do is allow gay couples who already have children (of which there are thousands) to gain legal recognition of the reality of their family relationship – that they both are parents to that child, irrespective of whose DNA he/she has. The belief that suddenly lots and lots of gay couples will be given children by the State is complete rubbish … there are less than 100 such “stranger” adoptions in New Zealand a year, and they only take place with the consent of the birth mother (and father, if he’s around).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Jimbob (641 comments) says:

    There is a young Lady down the road that has a teenage son. Her partner is a Woman, and this is legal. Adopting a baby into a same sex environment would be different, but would need time to see what effect it had on the child. I suppose solo parents is similar. DPF’s reply to KK at 1:52 pm makes some good points, but if this becomes law, it still take time to get used to it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Pete George (23,793 comments) says:

    There certainly won’t be much (if any) data in New Zealand that shows that a mother and father is better than a same sex couple at raising an adopted child. If there is anything to back up the mother+father is better claim please show it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Chuck Bird (4,891 comments) says:

    The is plenty of evidence that homosexuals on average do not make the best parents.

    http://www.gayconspiracy.info/

    There has been a lot of change in public attitude on homosexual issues but it is unlikely that it will ever be universally accepted and probably not by the majority.

    One just has to look as statistics on the sexual abuse of children including adolescents. Sure more girls are sexually abused than boys but not that many more. In the case of boys who sexually abused the majority are abused by males although it would appear that more women sexually abuse boy than previously thought but the vast majority of the abuse is by males.

    Homosexual and bisexual make up about 3% of the population so it should be obvious to anyone but a libertarian ideologue that homosexual are overrepresented in sexual abuse statistics. It seems many of the libertarians on this blog have no problem understanding words like disproportionate and overrepresented were it is about crime and benefit statistics when it relates to Maori but have difficulty when it relates to homosexual offending against underage boys.

    I am not suggesting that a couple of homosexuals would go to the trouble of adopting a baby boy to sexually abuse him in say 15 years. However, they would be at much greater risk being sexually abused by their “parent’s” friends.

    Homosexuals have as a group have always had more liberal attitudes towards adult – child sex. They called intergeneration sex to make it sound better. I trust most you who support this idea have hear of NAMBLE (North American Man Boy Love Association) and PIE (Paedophile Information Exchange). These are both homosexual organisations which lobby for a law change to allow adult – child sex. Now there are heterosexual paedophiles who work together on the internet but I have not heard of a heterosexual group who lobbies for adult child sex.

    I cannot be bothered looking for the link but sometime ago the homosexual militants in the US lobbied for homosexuals to be allowed to be Big Brothers in the organisation with that name. The results were predictable and disastrous.

    There are many other good reasons why this is not a good idea. Bullying is a main one. The next thing will be demands for hate speech to protect kind who are bullied as a result of this stupid social experiment.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Dick Prebble (60 comments) says:

    An issue I could hardly give a shit about, and pathetic that it even needs to be debated but not surprising given all the conservative meatheads in the National Party, but I just like to click the comments sections on these threads just to see Christian heads exploding.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Pete George (23,793 comments) says:

    Chuck – New Zealand? US Christian sites are not very balanced at times.

    And what are the statistics in New Zealand on parents and child murder and child abuse – straight couples versus gay couples?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Johnboy (17,015 comments) says:

    Oh….The children!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Johnboy (17,015 comments) says:

    Then of course PG there are statistics etc. and then there is the truth! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Harriet (5,200 comments) says:

    AG #

    Go into this a little bit more.

    Does that then mean that they will -legally- be called father & father parents and mother & mother ?

    Because if that is so then it is also a lie.Because only ‘natural’ parents can be called mother and father.In Australia they had a law change along these lines [ivf etc] and what it has amounted to is that legal documents[birth certificates] have been knowingly accepted into court by judges who know that the documents contain lies[people have been named mother or father and it is not geneticly possable].And the judges go along with it.Appeasement.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. AG (1,833 comments) says:

    “Adopting a baby into a same sex environment would be different, but would need time to see what effect it had on the child.”

    Babies already can be adopted into same sex environments … see my example of a gay uncle being able to adopt his nephew after that child’s parents are killed in a car-crash. It’s just that babies cannot be JOINTLY adopted by a same-sex couple. Once again, people are failing to actually understand what the legal issue is here.

    “There has been a lot of change in public attitude on homosexual issues but it is unlikely that it will ever be universally accepted and probably not by the majority. ”

    I think the dustbin of history awaits, Chuck.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Johnboy (17,015 comments) says:

    Uncle Gay!

    I sort of like that really! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Johnboy (17,015 comments) says:

    Once knew a person named “Gaye”.

    After the revolution she felt the need to introduce herself as “Gaye with an E”.

    The poofs have a lot to answer for really! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. AG (1,833 comments) says:

    @Harriet: “Because only ‘natural’ parents can be called mother and father”

    This is wrong. A child’s father dies. The mother remarries. She and the step-father then jointly adopt the child, and thus become in the eyes of the law the child’s mother and father (i.e. the child’s “natural” father now has no legal existence in the child’s life).

    That’s the major role that adoption now plays in today’s society – the “State giving babies to different couples” role is virtually non-existent (less than 100 cases a year). So … how does putting a gay couple in the place of a step-couple make the world collapse?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Chuck Bird (4,891 comments) says:

    AG, just go into a working class pub and ask someone if they are gay.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. AG (1,833 comments) says:

    “Working class”? My, my … how salt-of-the-earth of you.

    But silliness aside, here we have a region of the National Party … the NATIONAL PARTY, FFS … expressing support for a remit that would allow same-sex couples to adopt children, and you are still claiming that “[homosexuality] is unlikely [to] ever be universally accepted and probably not by the majority.” So … I think the tide of history is more on my side on this issue, I’m afraid.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Chuck Bird (4,891 comments) says:

    PG, what US Christian site are you referring to? The site I gave a link to is in the UK. Tell me if you can find any biblical quotes.

    In any case if it is okay to dismiss statistics and research because someone is Christian as being unbalanced them why could not the same be said of homosexuals and libertarians?

    I find many libertarians more than a little unbalanced. They remind me of fundamentalist Christians – if only everyone would listen to them the world would be a utopia.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Chuck Bird (4,891 comments) says:

    “I think the tide of history is more on my side on this issue, I’m afraid.”

    We will have to wait and see. If you have studied history you will see that things have changed and changed back.

    For example the drinking age in many US states was 18. It is now 21 in all states. The age may change here in NZ as well.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. tvb (4,553 comments) says:

    Maybe some gays do not make the best parents but then they are unlikely to BECOME parents unless they make a real determined effort to do so. Conversely straights can create children easily, bring them into a poverty stricken welfare homes where the kids are starving because the parents abuse alcohol smoke and take drugs.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Harriet (5,200 comments) says:

    AG #

    Indeed, one must recall why adoption laws have been established in the first place. Because young children are so vulnerable, the aim of adoption has been to provide the child in question with a secure, permanent, legal family. The paramount concern in adoption has been the best interests of the child. Thus only the best families have been allowed to adopt, not just “good enough” families.[less than 100 cases a year you said] The issue of homosexual fostering is really all about homosexual rights, not the interests and needs of children.

    Can a homosexual couple love and nurture a child? Undoubtedly many can. But that is not the issue. As the former vice president of the National Council for Adoption in the US has put it, “providing a nurturing environment is not enough. A homosexual parent cannot provide the parental experience of a parent of the opposite sex, and this is as critical to the child as anything else. When discussing a child’s needs, it is not just a discussion of what a particular parent can provide – it is just as important to consider what a parent cannot provide and, in this case, it is half of a child’s needed parenting experience.”

    The simple truth is, there exists a mountain of social science research which demonstrates that children do best when raised in a biological, two-parent household, cemented by marriage. The evidence is so overwhelming that the reader is advised to look at recent summaries of the data. However, several recent academic studies can be mentioned here, which demonstrate the importance of children growing up with their married biological mother and father.

    As two family experts and child psychologists put it: “While a compassionate and caring society always comes to the aid of motherless and fatherless families, a wise and loving society never intentionally creates fatherless or motherless families. But that is exactly what every same-sex family does and for no other reason than adults desire such families. No child-development theory says children need parents of the same gender – as loving as they might be – but rather that children need their mother and father.”

    http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2010/08/27/children-and-family-structure/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Pete George (23,793 comments) says:

    Tell me if you can find any biblical quotes.

    They don’t have to be bibilical quotes to show a certain narrow brand of Christian:

    “There she spearheaded legislation that would embrace homosexual rights with gusto, thus casting Christian and other rights to one side.”

    “Thus, the equalities of homosexuals are more pressing than the freedom of expression of Christians.”

    “Christians are free publicly to discuss all forms of sin with the one exception of homosexuality. That is utter taboo. Many people feel that an insidious pressure is being brought to privatise the Christian religion as a precursor to criminalizing it.”

    “Thus, the State colludes in a lie, is willing to punish any who disagree, and grotesquely crushes civil morality, cultural norm and religious virtue.”

    “Religious ethics, in particular are condemned as a form of hate simply for rejecting homosexuality as a sin.”

    “For that purpose, this non-religious, non-commercial and wholly independent website…”

    They tried appearances, but they couldn’t help themselves by the look of it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Johnboy (17,015 comments) says:

    Can’t understand these bloody poofs. If you are into kinky sex stay with sheep I say! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. AG (1,833 comments) says:

    “For example the drinking age in many US states was 18. It is now 21 in all states. The age may change here in NZ as well.”

    Is that REALLY the best analogy you can make? Isn’t the relevant comparison prohibition? Or an even better one would be the vote … has anywhere, ever re-raised the age at which people may exercise the franchise?

    Or, even more relevantly, if you want to go on record as predicting that New Zealand (or, indeed, any advanced liberal-democracy) will at some point in the future move to re-criminalise gay/lesbian sex, or to rescind the right of gay/lesbian couples to enter civil unions/marriage (after this has been given by elected officials, not imposed by judges), or to kick gay/lesbian individuals out of the armed forces, etc, etc then please do so. I’ve been short of laughs recently.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. AG (1,833 comments) says:

    @Harriet: You obviously haven’t bothered reading what I actually wrote about the role that adoption actually plays in contemporary society, so there isn’t much point trying to respond to you.

    One point though, because it’s pretty important. You say “The paramount concern in adoption has been the best interests of the child. Thus only the best families have been allowed to adopt, not just “good enough” families.” While the first part of this is correct, the second is plain wrong and indicates – once again – that you just do not understand how adoption works.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Johnboy (17,015 comments) says:

    Course if we create a Parliamentary task force to put Gay/Lesbian couples in charge of population enhancement then we can all have a fucking good laugh AG. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Chuck Bird (4,891 comments) says:

    PG, I am glad you read the main page. I hope others do also. It shows the danger of allowing homosexuals to be in a position of influence over adolescent boys.

    Things are much worse in the UK and Canada than they are here. As I said earlier if things like homosexual adoption are adopted here and there are problems such as bullying the solution will be hate speech legislative that has seen people jailed for say homosexuality was sinful or evil.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Leaping Jimmy (16,681 comments) says:

    [DPF: Yes, but that is a factor to be considered in adoptions, and should not be an immovable barrier.

    I am of the view that if all other things are equal, then it is better for a child to have a male and female parent. Absolutely.

    But all other things are not equal. Prospective parents will have varying standards of parental skills, literacy, health, income, housing quality, dedication to education.

    Many same sex couples will be able to provide a better environment for children, than non same sex couples. Our child abuse states are legion to that.

    Decisions on fitness to be a parent should be based on the particular circumstances of the couple, and not have a legislative ban on them being the same sex]

    DPF this may be your view but you are extraordinarily naive if you expect that such a mechanism will operate if this policy is enacted.

    Name one politically correct area which has not resulted in complete and utter outrage from the “victims” if the precise of your view was not the way the policy operated? Go on. Name one.

    No.

    It’s quite obvious what will happen, isn’t it.

    If there’s any opportunity at all to give a gay couple the nod ahead of others in the queue, even a fraction of an opportunity, the gay couple will get the preference. It will not be a balanced decision taking your preferred factors into account. Look at every single politically correct policy in operation today. This is how they all work. Why would this one be any different?

    So all I’m saying is: make your decision as to whether you support this policy or not, in full knowledge that this is how it will be operated once enacted. Don’t pretend it will be otherwise, because it won’t be. History has proven it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Harriet (5,200 comments) says:

    AG #

    “….@Harriet: You obviously haven’t bothered reading what I actually wrote about the role that adoption actually plays in contemporary society, so there isn’t much point trying to respond to you….”

    WTF ? This is what you asked –

    “…So … how does putting a gay couple in the place of a step-couple make the world collapse?…”

    And this in part was my reply-

    A homosexual parent cannot provide the parental experience of a parent of the opposite sex, and this is as critical to the child as anything else. When discussing a child’s needs, it is not just a discussion of what a particular parent can provide – it is just as important to consider what a parent cannot provide and, in this case, it is half of a child’s needed parenting experience.”…………….. “While a compassionate and caring society always comes to the aid of motherless and fatherless families, a wise and loving society never intentionally creates fatherless or motherless families. But that is exactly what every same-sex family does and for no other reason than adults desire such families. No child-development theory says children need parents of the same gender – as loving as they might be – but rather that children need their mother and father.”

    You have got to remember AG that adoption -like Marriage- is a shelter for the next generation.And that is why government are involved in both Marriage and adoption.If they both only involved adults then government wouldn’t care less about them.

    Or in other words – the government IS worried about ‘collapse’ – you could also look at the welfare bill too you know ?

    “….@Harriet: You obviously haven’t bothered reading what I actually wrote about the role that adoption actually plays in contemporary society,…’

    I have not used the ‘r’ word at all. This case against gay adoption can be made, and has been made without the need of Religious influence.

    What don’t you get about ‘contemporary society’ AG ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Scott (1,807 comments) says:

    “Nats vote for same sex adoption”

    It used to be you had to worry when Labour was in power and there was one abomination after another. Now National is voting for homosexuals to get married and children to be adopted by homosexuals! Great.

    Now John Key did nothing about the anti-smacking bill. Did not want to use any political capital. Now he wants to use his good will on this?

    You see National used to be a conservative party. There are things worth conserving. Like marriage which for thousands of years has been between a man and a woman. Like mum and dad and the kids. Not dad and dad and the kids.

    Redbaiter was right. These guys are labour-lite. Indeed they appear to want to carry on the work of Helen Clark and the rest of the rainbow faction of the Labour party.

    I will be interested to observe John Key’s polling. Hopefully it will trend down. He needs a wake up call to remember what his party is supposed to stand for. And it is not radical social engineering by government fiat.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. bhudson (4,741 comments) says:

    Scott,

    How does allowing same-sex couples to adopt not conserve marriage? After all, you don’t have to be married to have children

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Harriet (5,200 comments) says:

    AG #

    Here’s some more –

    As two family experts point out: “The two most loving mothers in the world can’t be a father to a little boy. Love can’t equip mothers to teach a little boy how to be a man. Likewise, the two most loving men can’t be a mother to a child.”

    They continue, “Love does little to help a man teach a little girl how to be a woman. Can you imagine two men guiding a young girl through her first menstrual cycle or helping her through the awkwardness of picking out her first bra? Such a situation might make for a funny television sitcom but not a very good real-life situation for a young girl.”

    One woman who was raised by lesbians now runs a support and recovery program for those coming out of the homosexual lifestyle and their families. She put it this way: “I realise that homosexuals feel they can give a child love and support that even many straight families can’t provide, but I’ve been there. I know the finger-pointing and the shame one carries. For years, you struggle with the thought that you might be a homosexual. People say ‘like mother, like daughter.’ Most of us become promiscuous to prove we’re straight.”

    It must also be said AG that NZ’s prisons are filled mostly by males who had little or no contact with their fathers.Mothers don’t make fathers.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Inky_the_Red (764 comments) says:

    As I have said before the law doesn’t discriminate on sexual orientation. It discriminates on marital status. Only married couples can adopt with in NZ. When I found that out, despite being married, I felt it was very antiquated and unfair.

    So why concentrate on the gay couples only why not concentrate on changing to allowing unmarried couple the same rights as married regardless of the marital status. I can only assume that some people want to change the law so only gay and married couples can adopt.

    Even if the change was made there are very few adoptions in NZ that a gay couple are unlikely to be able to adopt (unless they know the parent(s) of the child they are adopting) With overseas adoption then the laws of the overseas countries determine who can adopt

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. AG (1,833 comments) says:

    @Harriet: You’re (once again) completely missing the point. So I can’t argue with you. I’d like to, but I can’t.

    @Inky: “Only married couples can adopt with in NZ. When I found that out, despite being married, I felt it was very antiquated and unfair.”

    Actually, straight de facto couples can now jointly adopt (the High Court stretched the term “spouse” to include this).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Harriet (5,200 comments) says:

    Inky #

    Adoption is about the needs of the child.Not the wishes, rights or wants of anyone else.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. AG (1,833 comments) says:

    @Leaping Jimmy: “If there’s any opportunity at all to give a gay couple the nod ahead of others in the queue, even a fraction of an opportunity, the gay couple will get the preference.”

    You honestly think there is an “adoption queue”? You really have NO idea at all what you are talking about, do you?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. chiz (1,171 comments) says:

    Chuck Bird:PG, I am glad you read the main page. I hope others do also. It shows the danger of allowing homosexuals to be in a position of influence over adolescent boys.

    I read about half of the main page before giving up. What the page shows is the dangers of allowing uninformed halfwits to have opinions. The bits I read were full of misinformation and misrepresentation. You need to stop relying on antigay websites for your information chuck.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Scott (1,807 comments) says:

    “How does allowing same-sex couples to adopt not conserve marriage? After all, you don’t have to be married to have children”

    Ok let me answer that question as well as I can. Marriage is the universal institution all across the world and across history between a man and a woman. From that sexual union comes children who are expected to be looked after by the couple. Conservatives would argue for the necessity of marriage as the proven institution for raising children. Therefore having children out of wedlock should be discouraged and stigmatised. As it has been in almost every culture except very recently our own.

    Same sex couple getting married opens the door to same sex adoption. It is all part of the movement for full acceptance of homosexuality as normal. The National government is supposed to be about conserving the time honoured and proven social arrangements that have served us well. Such as Mum and Dad and the kids. This is the natural arrangement.

    Now they want to allow homosexuals to marry and adopt children. This is a radical change which will have many unexpected consequences. It is also against the natural order and as such should be resisted by any conservative government worthy of the name.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Leaping Jimmy (16,681 comments) says:

    You honestly think there is an “adoption queue”? You really have NO idea at all what you are talking about, do you?

    IF there is a queue, AG, that is what will happen. IF there is a queue. I realise these days, there may not be. So what? Tell me what else is wrong, with what I said. You can’t, can you. That IS what will happen, isn’t it. Yes, it is.

    Adoption is about the needs of the child.Not the wishes, rights or wants of anyone else.

    Harriet. Clap clap clap clap clap. Completely utterly agree in every possible way. I wish every single person saw this in exactly the same light.

    BTW, has anyone done stats analysis on gay couples who have kids? Anecdotal observations indicate that lesbian couples in particular, who get kids into their lives, tend to break up a year or two later, even if they’ve been together for many years prior. I would think this is a serous issue which needs investigating. Same with gay guys. Imagine the consequences if this turns out to be the prevalent case, for those poor children.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Harriet (5,200 comments) says:

    LJ #

    Ta.

    I have seen your postings here the last couple of weeks, and I can higly reccomend this site for the infomation you seek.Aussie based, but Bill has been around for a long time.A conservative.His site contains stats and opinions on all social matters.He has been on TV and has had his opinions in Aus and overseas papers hundreds of times.Well respected, but hated by the left.Just last week he had to present a case against gay marriage to the Senate inquiry.It’s well worth your while to keep this on your favorites list.

    http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. bhudson (4,741 comments) says:

    Scott,

    1. Conservatives (as opposed to religious people with conservative views) dropped the “marriage is a necessity” line over 20 years ago vis-a-viz raising children

    2. More importantly, for this specific thread, is that the remit specifically avoided same-sex marriage and called for access to joint adoptio for same-sex couples under a civil union (very clever approach IMHO)

    Your answer attempts to conflate positions which are not relevant to this specific thread – the remit is not about same-sex marriage, and if you wish to outlaw children outside of marriage then that is another discussion entirely (and one which should be directed at de facto couples irrespective of sexuality.)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. cha (4,135 comments) says:

    Here’s the antidote to the bigot.

    Bill Muehlenberg: Bullying and lying for Jesus.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Harriet (5,200 comments) says:

    LJ#

    BTW most of his insights may contain Biblical text etc but you can get the gist of it all and the facts from amongst it.
    Some are heavy on the text but some also have no Biblical text.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Leaping Jimmy (16,681 comments) says:

    Thanks Harriet. Looks v good.

    cha is it possible the people behind your link are the bigoted ones? Just asking.

    But thanks both. Balance is important.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Harriet (5,200 comments) says:

    Cha #

    Are you gay by any chance ?

    As the WHOLE website only condemmed Bills veiws towards homosexuality.

    He actually writes on about 100 other matters – from education to health to children to Marriage to politics to God to…..yes abortion and the likes also.

    O….I ALMOST FORGOT Cha….lucky you…….Bill mentions dozens of times that God loves the sinner – not the sin.

    Get a life.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. AG (1,833 comments) says:

    “IF there is a queue, AG, that is what will happen. IF there is a queue. I realise these days, there may not be. So what? Tell me what else is wrong, with what I said. You can’t, can you. That IS what will happen, isn’t it. Yes, it is.”

    And IF the moon is made of cheese, giant space mice will nibble on it.

    Given that there ISN’T any such thing as “an adoption queue”, then it makes your entire response to DPF completely irrelevant. Which seems pretty important in the context of this discussion, no? As for “what else is wrong with what you said” (apart, of course, from the relatively trivial fact it was predicated on a complete misunderstanding of how the world actually works), nothing … except that it basically is Wishart-esque nonsense. Which is fine, if you are the kind of person who thinks Ian Wishart is to be taken seriously. Which is fine, if you want to be such a person. Which is fine, because I’m a liberal.

    [DPF: AG is right that there is no real adoption queue. Adoptions today are not blind ones through the state, but generally arranged through agreement of the birth parents and adoptive parents directly]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. AG (1,833 comments) says:

    Harriet,

    Are you sexually attracted to women, but so afraid of the feelings this creates within you and the possible judgment of your family/friends that you seek to deny them by cleaving to an extremist position that condemns homosexuality and thus bury what it is your libido is asking of you, by any chance?

    I ask only seeing as you think it’s appropriate on this thread to pry into other commentators sexual orientation/preferences.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Harriet (5,200 comments) says:

    AG #

    cha would take the likes of Wisehart seriously.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. bhudson (4,741 comments) says:

    Harriet,

    I suspect cha most certainly would not

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Redbaiter (10,395 comments) says:

    “[DPF: It is a topical issue]”

    No it isn’t.

    What it is is even more evidence that the National Party is no different to the Labour Party.

    Don’t waste your vote on these two hopelessly progressive parties.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Harriet (5,200 comments) says:

    AG#

    No I’m not attracted to people of the same sex as I’ve been affirmed into my female gender, much like we all were further back in time, but unlike lots today.I was also not sexualized by TV or made to ‘feel’ ‘sympathetic’ towards homosexuals by a blindly sympathetic media.

    I find the millitant gays to be immature, and that is not an ‘extremist’ position, infact, it is a common held veiw.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. AG (1,833 comments) says:

    Well, that’s what you WOULD say, isn’t it Harriet?

    As for those “militant gays”, wanting to be treated like human beings … it’s a good thing you’re around to remind them they aren’t.

    Right. I’m done here. Have a nice night, all.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. bhudson (4,741 comments) says:

    Don’t waste your vote on these two hopelessly progressive parties.

    No! Red says you should vote for the Conservative Party Statists.

    (Apparently Statism is the ruin of society – unless the Statists in question are his sort of Statists.)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. wat dabney (3,840 comments) says:

    For the record, if I was a woman I’d be a lesbian. A dirty, dirty lesbian.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. Fletch (6,521 comments) says:

    MADRID, Spain (LifeSiteNews.com) – In light of a pending vote in the Spanish Senate on same-sex marriage HazteOir, together with the Spanish Forum for the Family and the Institute for Family Policy, has published and distributed an in-depth report on the effects that being raised by same-sex parents has on a child. The report, entitled “Report on Infantile Development in Same-Sex Couples” and available only in Spanish at this time, gathers and compares information from a vast number of studies carried out on the issue.

    HazteOir, concerned by the apparent unquestioning acceptance in Spain of homosexual adoption, hopes that the wide array of information provided in the report and its extensive bibliography will prove to the Senate that homosexual parentage is harmful for children.

    The president of HazteOir stated, in light of the findings of the report: “In no way can a couple of persons of the same sex be judged suitable for adopting a child. Considering the findings of this vast bibliography we are obliged to protect the minor and say that same-sex couples must not be allowed to adopt children.”

    The report contests that the majority of the studies carried out which have concluded in favour of same-sex parenthood betray an egregious lack of scientific rigour. Most of the studies show a strong bias to one side.

    To prove this the report analyzes the nature of the individuals who have been responsible for the various studies carried out thus far, demonstrating that the vast majority are either homosexuals themselves, or active in the gay-rights movement. Into this category fall all six of the six most prominent psychologists of the American Psychological Association, which, unsurprisingly is one of the organizations most strongly and vocally in favour of homosexual adoption.

    In compiling and comparing the available data from these studies, as well as more objective studies, the team of first-class psychologists and sociologists which penned the HazteOir report have noted prominent and disturbing trends.

    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.

    The Spanish Association of Pediatrics firmly backs up the findings of the report, stating that a “family nucleus with two fathers or two mothers is clearly dangerous for the child”.

    View the Spanish-language report at:
    http://www.fides.org/spa/approfondire/2005/spagna_noesigual.html

    View the “Agenzio Fides” coverage at:
    http://www.fides.org/eng/news/2005/0505/25_4993.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. wiseowl (974 comments) says:

    This vote would have to be one of the most retrograde steps ever considered by the National Party and shows how backward and gutless they have become.
    There are many posts that I applaud, that outline the reality of the situation and the damage being done by those sucked in by the hype and desire to be part of some demented interpretation of an idealistic future.
    National have totally lost the plot if they support this and will be assured of losing the majority at the next election.
    Total disappointment,total disillusionment.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. bereal (3,137 comments) says:

    This is a sick joke, because,

    there are more male/female (normal) couples waiting to adopt than there are children to be adopted,

    and, these Mom/Dad couples will now have a couple of faggots or a couple of lessos joining the queue

    as supposedly equal value as parents.

    If the faggots could adopt children ony after there were no more hetero/normal couples left waiting for children
    to adopt i might be able to agree, but untill then, this is just sick.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. bhudson (4,741 comments) says:

    bereal,

    If children on an adoption waiting list were forced to be placed with heterosexual couples with attitudes like yours, then I would be sick

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. Griff (8,419 comments) says:

    Spain
    isint that country mostly RC
    the church of the kiddy fiddlers
    The one led by a man implicated in hiding pedos from the justice they deserve
    How strange
    look at the same sex marriage vote
    notice any thing
    hmmm anti gay views are a minority here
    I am sure you homophobic god botherers will be lining up to vote CCCP
    intill the inevitable dirt comes out
    wot was it last time Cristian heritage
    raping prepubescent girls mind you according to that man of god it was ok they asked for it

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. bereal (3,137 comments) says:

    bhudson , silly post.

    Get this, there are more prospective parents waiting to adopt than there are children waiting to be adopted.
    i mean a couple composed of a male and a female.

    Can you grasp that ?

    Did you realise that ?

    secondary point,

    You OK with male children being adopted by a couple of homosexuals guys when there are M/F couples
    waiting to be Mum and Dads ?

    You need to give this matter more thought mate.

    Your P.C. proclivity seems to have warped your judgement.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. The Scorned (719 comments) says:

    I am totally opposed to this. Adoption is not a ‘right’ for any person or couple. In contrast, a child has a right to an optimum environment to be raised, that being with a mother and father.

    There has never,nor will ever be a “right”of a child to a Mother and Father…Nature…which kills millions of people and creates many orphans, recognises no such bullshit “right”. Of course a Mum and Dad are the ideal for a child to have….but nature/fate doesn’t go for that much of the time…..so denying Gays the right to fill in makes no sense at all.

    Fuck the bigots here….time to die off you hate filled fossils.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. bereal (3,137 comments) says:

    Also bhudson consider this.

    The reasons why there are many more prospective parents waiting to adopt in NZ than
    there are children waiting to be adopted include.

    The ease to obtain an abortion in NZ and

    the fact that legions of single Mums choose not to give up their kids for adoption is because they are their
    meal ticket and the very reason they got pregnant in the first place, due to the DPB.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. bhudson (4,741 comments) says:

    Bereal,

    You OK with male children being adopted by a couple of homosexuals guys when there are M/F couples
    waiting to be Mum and Dads ?

    Actually I think the child’s best interests are served being matched with the best prospective parents. Which means any showing the attitude you do should be carted to the back of the queue irrespective of sexuality. It is a good thing there is an interview and assessment process.

    The ease to obtain an abortion in NZ

    I could agree with some that perhaps it is a little tough, but then there are fewer children put up for adoption than there are willing parents, so it is the way it needs to be.

    the fact that legions of single Mums choose not to give up their kids for adoption is because they are their
    meal ticket and the very reason they got pregnant in the first place, due to the DPB.

    Well life is going to change there – for the better for all concerned. I am extraordinarily proud to be a member of a party in govt that is actually tackling the real problems around the poor lifestyles, choices and chances for welfare-dependent families

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. bereal (3,137 comments) says:

    The Scorned,

    you say, ‘of course a Mum and Dad are ideal for a child to have…”

    Given that, would you agree that gays should only adopt after all the prospective ‘ideal’ parents
    have been satisfied ?

    Also The Scorned, if nature was on your side then surely she would have made it possible
    for homosexuals to procreate children naturally, right ?

    i’m not against gays adopting per se but only when there are no more normal prospective parents waiting.

    Do you not agree ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. SGA (1,252 comments) says:

    @ AG – “Which then leads to all sorts of potential problems … imagine how it would feel in your relationship if only your partner was considered in law to be your child’s “parent”, while you were viewed in law as a second-rate “guardian” who has lesser rights to decide how the child will be raised.”

    I’m curious Andrew. How is this different from being the step-parent to children from your wife’s former husband? Certainly the impression I got from family court was that I was, in a sense, “second fiddle” in what was going on. At the end of the day, I just got on with things and I tried to be the best parent that I could to all the children I was raising (and, as things turned out, the father in question left the country for much of that time leaving us with the financial burden). If one is that consumed by how you “feel” about your legal status that it effects your parenting, then there’s already a problem.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. mikenmild (12,324 comments) says:

    The sole criterion for adoption should be the welfare of the child, If a single parent wishes to adopt – no problem, if a couple, whatever sex, no problem. The ideas that it’s okay for same-sex couples to adopt, but only after all the ‘normal’ parents have adopted, is just outrageous.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. chiz (1,171 comments) says:

    Scott:Marriage is the universal institution all across the world and across history between a man and a woman.

    It is not a universal institution all across the world and history. How many times do we have to keep pointing this out?

    Marriage comes in, and has come in, a wide range of forms throughout the world and history. Polygyny and polyandry, group marriages, you name it. Gay marriages have existed in the past. Some societies today have no concept of marriage at all.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. bhudson (4,741 comments) says:

    @mikey,

    I agree

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. Fletch (6,521 comments) says:

    chiz, the societies that adopted ‘gay marriage’ crashed and failed. And why? Because it wasn’t of nature. I am reminded of some song lyrics by Joni Mitchell (although she probably wasn’t singing about the same subject) –


    If you’re smart or rich or lucky
    Maybe you’ll beat the laws of man
    But the inner laws of spirit
    And the outer laws of nature
    No man can
    No no man can

    That kind of sums it up.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. bereal (3,137 comments) says:

    bhudson,
    with resect, your effort @ 8.00 does you little credit.

    i’m not trying to adopt a child, so your second paragraph is silly, as is much of the rest of that post.

    Would you agree with me that,
    as it is generally accepted that a Mum and a Dad is the most normal situation (in nature)
    Then,
    Gays should be allowed to adopt only after there are no more heterosexual prospective parents
    of equal merit left ?

    Put it another way, do you feel that, all things being equal it would be better for the child to
    be adopted by a Mum and Dad couple rather than a homosexual couple ?

    If not, why not ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. bereal (3,137 comments) says:

    mikenmild @ 8.06

    Why is it ‘Just outrageous.” ?

    Do you deny that the best outcomes for a child occur when they are nutured in a loving family
    comprised of a Mum and a Dad ?

    i’m not saying that just a Mum, or just a Dad, or a gay couple is wrong.
    Just that a female Mum and a male Dad is the most natural, according to Nature.

    How is that wrong ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. chiz (1,171 comments) says:

    Fletch:chiz, the societies that adopted ‘gay marriage’ crashed and failed. And why?

    Really? Rome crashed and failed because of gay marriage?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. bhudson (4,741 comments) says:

    Bereal,

    Firstly, my comment referred to others displaying your attitude, not you. That was very clear. I am disappointed that you could not see that.

    To your questions immediately above, my answers are (1) not relevant to this thread and (2) “no”. More fully, my answer is that (given given this topic is about adoption and adoption only) the children in question should be placed with the best parents irrespective of sex, sexuality, race, religion, political or social beliefs

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. wiseowl (974 comments) says:

    If you are a member of a party in govt then what a disappointment you are.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. Harriet (5,200 comments) says:

    bhudson#

    “….More fully, my answer is that (given given this topic is about adoption and adoption only) the children in question should be placed with the best parents irrespective of sex, sexuality, race, religion, political or social beliefs…”

    The issue of homosexual fostering is really all about homosexual rights, not the interests and needs of children.

    Can a homosexual couple love and nurture a child? Undoubtedly many can. But that is not the issue. As the former vice president of the National Council for Adoption in the US has put it, “providing a nurturing environment is not enough.
    A homosexual parent cannot provide the parental experience of a parent of the opposite sex, and this is as critical to the child as anything else. When discussing a child’s needs, it is not just a discussion of what a particular parent can provide – it is just as important to consider what a parent cannot provide and, in this case, it is half of a child’s needed parenting experience.”…………….. “While a compassionate and caring society always comes to the aid of motherless and fatherless families, a wise and loving society never intentionally creates fatherless or motherless families. But that is exactly what every same-sex family does and for no other reason than adults desire such families. No child-development theory says children need parents of the same gender – as loving as they might be – but rather that children need their mother and father.”

    You have got to remember that adoption -like Marriage- is a shelter for the next generation.And that is why government are involved in both Marriage and adoption.If they both only involved adults then government wouldn’t care less about them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. bereal (3,137 comments) says:

    one last try with you bhudson,

    given that two sets of prospective parents are equal in all the respects you list race, religion,
    political or social beliefs and one set is a Mum and a Dad and the other is a couple of homosexual males.

    Then do you truly feel that both sets are equal ?
    That is the question.
    Come on, drop the P.C. bull and try and be honest.

    You think the five year old will have no problems reading, ‘Johnny has two fathers.” at school when he is the
    only kid in school with two fathers?

    Just be big enough to admit that the best for Johnny, given everything else being equal would be
    that he has a Mother and a Father.

    Can you accept that ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. spagbol (2 comments) says:

    1. The American Psychological Association has found no conclusive research to show that growing up in a single-sex household has any negative impact on a child’s development or mental well-being. They have also found no conclusive evidence to show that children growing up in a homosexual household are more likely to become homosexual. There is absolutely no evidence to show that being homosexual has any negative impact on the ability to look after a child, and has shown that they are just as able to provide supportive and healthy environments for children.

    2. Gay people are already allowed to adopt children in New Zealand. However, they are only able to do this as an individual, rather than as a couple. This can mean that birth parents (who select adoptive parents) discriminate against their applications, as they can seem less credible than that of a couple.

    It also means that one person in the relationship does not have full parental rights to any child adopted, and so creates a whole legal disaster if the adoptive parent dies, or they split up. It also means the parent which does not have full parental rights may find it difficult to go through health services with said child.

    3. Research by the American Psychological Association has also shown that children of gay or lesbian parents are no less likely to suffer bullying than children in heterosexual families. They are also shown to have normal peer relationships, and are no more likely to be abused by adults than children in heterosexual families.

    4. If you’re a social conservative in the National Party, and having the decency to remove barriers for children to live in loving, safe homes makes you feel sick, then you can bugger right off to the CCCP. chur.

    http://www.apa.org/about/policy/parenting.aspx

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. bhudson (4,741 comments) says:

    wiseowl,

    If you are a member of a party outside of government then what a disappointment your party is

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. AG (1,833 comments) says:

    @SGA: “I’m curious Andrew. How is this different from being the step-parent to children from your wife’s former husband?”

    It may not be … but NZ’s adoption laws/legal treatment of reconstituted families doesn’t work that well for lots of different people, so I’m not sure how much can be gained by saying “one bad experience is a lot like other bad experiences”. That said, I guess the only real difference is that should you and your now wife ever wish for you to be legally recognised as your stepkids father (i.e. for the law to follow the actual reality of your lives), it is possible for you to do so through joint adoption. For gay couples, that can never happen – even if the couple have raised the child together from newborn, and the other biological parent has departed the scene willingly and renounced all parental rights.

    On the point that “If one is that consumed by how you “feel” about your legal status that it effects your parenting, then there’s already a problem”, sure! You would have to be mad to let legal status get in the way of being a parent in fact. But, on the other hand, to have a legal rule that in effect says “no matter how much you contribute to this child’s upbringing, no matter how much you love and care for them, no matter how they may feel about you, you can never, ever be their parent” seems … daft. And really that’s what this is about – making the law a little bit less daft and a bit more in keeping with how people actually live their lives.

    Isn’t that a good thing?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. edhunter (554 comments) says:

    [DPF: AG is right that there is no real adoption queue. Adoptions today are not blind ones through the state, but generally arranged through agreement of the birth parents and adoptive parents directly]
    But surely there must be some criteria or else it’d just come down to who ever had the most money to make the birth mothers convalescence a little easier. And if that was case allowing same sex couples to adopt would only muddy some already pretty murky water.
    And surely homosexuality is an evolutionary dead end for a reason, they need us a lot more than we will ever need them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. bhudson (4,741 comments) says:

    Bereal,

    If you really think that Johnny is the only child at schools with two fathers/mothers then you should seriously look at changing your moniker to “rip van bereal”.

    I repeat, the only determinant should be the interests of the child. If that places them with a heterosexual couple, then all well and good. Likewise if they are placed with a same-sex couple

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. AG (1,833 comments) says:

    @edhunter: If you really are interested in how adoption works, look here: http://adoptionoption.org.nz/adoption/adoption-process-couples/ … others could perhaps check it out, too.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. Scott (1,807 comments) says:

    Relying to chiz re “Marriage is a universal human institution”- …the study of both ancient and modern man reveals that marriage is a universal practice of the human family. The late Dr. Ashley Montague, a prominent anthropologist, wrote: “There are no societies in which marriage does not exist” (240). If marriage developed in a random, haphazard, evolutionary fashion, one might expect that “marriage” would be found in some cultures but not in others. The evidence, however, simply does not support that view.http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/1331-foundational-truths-regarding-marriage

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. Harriet (5,200 comments) says:

    bhudson#

    bereal is right…admit it.They can’t be placed with a same sex couple as it is not in the child’s best interests.Research shows that they need both a mother and father as without one of them, they won’t have ‘half’ their needs ‘met’.

    Maybe they are just born that way :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. SGA (1,252 comments) says:

    @AG – You’ve misunderstood me – I don’t have anything particular against gay adoption. The idea that – “Which then leads to all sorts of potential problems … imagine how it would feel in your relationship if only your partner was considered in law to be your child’s “parent”, while you were viewed in law as a second-rate “guardian” who has lesser rights to decide how the child will be raised.” I’ve lived through something similar – actually it’s not that much of a problem if you stay focused on the children. It’s this particular argument I find weak.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. bereal (3,137 comments) says:

    bhudson
    Now i resist the temptation to mock you but really, just to focus your thinking,
    what percentage of school kids do YOU think have two homosexual males as parents ?
    C’mon mate, what percentage ? Put a figure on it. Say, in your local school ?

    We both agree upon the priority of the interests of the child.

    The difference is that i believe that all things being equal those interests are best served by the
    child having the influence of both a Mother and a Father.

    You can’t see that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. Scott (1,807 comments) says:

    I certainly think that the National party is wrong on this one and will severely deplete their good will if they proceed with this. A conservative believes in continuity,reverence for the way things are arranged in historical continuity and the existence of a moral order that transcends our individual preferences.

    Adopting children to homosexual men appears to be a significant moral hazard and an entirely novel arrangement. Those of us who believe that homosexuality is outside the natural order of things are rightly appalled by this. However those who insist on homosexual marriage and gay adoption should join the Labour party which is the natural home for them.

    I am heartened by the back down of David Cameron on the issue of gay marriage. I do hope his NZ counterpart also wakes up and sees sense. This is potentially a big vote loser for the National party.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. kowtow (8,935 comments) says:

    The Nats are beginning to look more and more Labour by the day.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. bhudson (4,741 comments) says:

    Harriet – you believe that being placed with a same-sex couple cannot be in a child’s best interests. I disagree – there is simply no fundamental reason why a same-sex couple cannot be as blessed to have a child as a heterosexual couple. The straw an around not providing the right balance/role modeling falls down due to the sad reality that so many hetero couples fail to do the same.

    I think what you are really arguing for (underneath the rhetoric) is parenting licensing to make sure that children are raised by appropriate parents and role models. Aside from the obvious Orwellian reasons not to go there, that premise would not actually preclude same-sex parents for the very reason given for the failure of heterosexual parents.

    @Bereal – refer above. I can imagine you will see it, but the reality is that heterosexual family environments are not even close to a guarantee of a good a good environment for a child. Everyday reality undermines the view that a heterosexual couple are best for children – using your argument in reverse, there would be no child abuse, no child murders, no negligence. Think on reality a bit and then reflect on your idea that mother and father must be best

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. bereal (3,137 comments) says:

    bhudson @ 9.33

    How silly you are, what a silly statement,

    “Everyday reality undermines the view that a heterosexual
    couple are best for children.”

    Just proving that normal people cannot discuss these matters with you homos.

    Homos like you live in a parrallel universe.
    a sicko universe.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. Harriet (5,200 comments) says:

    bhudson @

    “….I disagree – there is simply no fundamental reason why a same-sex couple cannot be as blessed to have a child as a heterosexual couple. he straw an around not providing the right balance/role modeling falls down due to the sad reality that so many hetero couples fail to do the same…..”

    Just because ‘some’ hetro people fail as parents is not ‘good cause’ as to why homosexuals should then be allowed to adopt – infact it would more than likely reinforce reasons for them not too.Geeeez.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. Harriet (5,200 comments) says:

    bhudson@

    “Everyday reality undermines the view that a heterosexual
    couple are best for children.”

    As in…… It’s a big big big responsability each day ?

    We’ll then bhudson – don’t you think it would then be twice as hard if ALL the childs needs are met each day by a mother and father – than what a homosexual union has to offer: 2 people doing half as much to meet only half the childs needs ??

    Lazy arguement from lazy quarters !

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. chiz (1,171 comments) says:

    scott:There are no societies in which marriage does not exist

    The Na in SW China do not have marriage.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. Chuck Bird (4,891 comments) says:

    Could this be a clever plan by the National Party to leave an opening for a potential coalition partner?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. Jack5 (5,274 comments) says:

    Hell, National and Labour are competing hard (excuse the pun) for the gay vote, which is probably quite small.

    Anyone remember the rock song, I Wanna Take you to a Gay Bar?

    Could this be an NZ anthem? You need to know the music to get the rhythm.

    You!
    I wanna take you to Lab-our
    I wanna take you to Lab-our
    I wanna take you to a
    Labour gay bar Lab-our

    You’re a superpoof at the Nat gay bar
    You’re a superpoof at the Nat gay bar
    Yeah! You’re a superpoof at the Nat gay bar
    Superpoof
    Super, Natpoof, superpoof

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. AG (1,833 comments) says:

    @SGA – I didn’t take your argument to be that gay adoption necessarily is bad, so I’m not really arguing with you (simply teasing out points in the discussion). And yes … I agree that in most cases “it’s actually it’s not that much of a problem if you stay focused on the children” – which is why there currently are thousands of gay people raising kids in NZ even though the law is the way it is. People muddle their way around laws written in the 1950s that don’t fit today’s world, and legal status is secondary to the reality of family life.

    But the fact remains that the law does not allow any way AT ALL for gay couples to put their parental status on an equal footing. And for some, that may cut close to the bone (as well as creating potential legal hazards down the line – as when the legally recognised “parent” dies and the remaining “guardian” does not get the automatic right to remain in care of the child). Which means they may well “feel” the lack of legal options very keenly.

    Or, put it another way … if a straight couple in a new family relationship decide to jointly adopt their kids, do you think they are simply wasting their time and money?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. Jack5 (5,274 comments) says:

    Chuck Bird posted at 10.15:

    Could this be a clever plan by the National Party to leave an opening for a potential coalition partner?

    Chuck do you mean coition partner?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. Harriet (5,200 comments) says:

    bhudson#

    “….he straw an around not providing the right balance/role modeling falls down due to the sad reality that so many hetero couples fail to do the same…..”

    What?

    You are saying that ‘just some’ hetro people are failures -yet- at the very height of ‘best practice homosexual adoption parenting’ you can at best, only offer the very same – half the completed job – for half the effort of raising a child !

    Well, finaly you understand then what the problem is.Congratulations.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. Jack5 (5,274 comments) says:

    Anyone interested in the rock song, I Wanna Take you to a Gay Bar (my 10.16 post) can see a good animation of it at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tw7EJ_mTmdM

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. SGA (1,252 comments) says:

    @AG – Or, put it another way … if a straight couple in a new family relationship decide to jointly adopt their kids, do you think they are simply wasting their time and money?

    Well, if there are existing other parents, no matter how removed from the situation in terms of day-to-day operations, it depends on how much money they have (the lawyers will want their kilo of flesh, won’t they?). And it’s not just time and money, it’s stress as well – the lawyers switch off when they get home, their clients don’t. It also depends to what extent the lawyers will “put the kids through the wringer” (and please don’t insult me by saying it doesn’t happen, it does) – the more caring parent will tend to give in first. As I think about it, Andrew, you MUST know all this already, and the other things I’d add.

    Andrew – “parenting” is a verb not a noun. If you can’t function as a parent without, in some sense, “owning” the child, then you probably shouldn’t bother.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. AG (1,833 comments) says:

    @SGA: “If you can’t function as a parent without, in some sense, “owning” the child, then you probably shouldn’t bother.”

    I’m not sure why you’re telling me this again, seeing as I agreed with it in my last comment.

    But on the issue of why legal status may matter (aside from the very real legal implications that it can have … for instance, in your own case, what would happen if your wife died and her ex-husband (and the children’s “father”) then sought custody?), let’s try this another way. Let’s say your wife’s ex-husband suddenly sought to jointly adopt your step-kids with another woman … but at the same time made it clear he’s happy for the kids to stay in the custody of you and your wife, and you can go on raising them exactly as you do now. So “all” that would change is that, in the eyes of the law, your wife is no longer their “mother” (her name comes off their birth certificates, etc), but her ex-husband’s new partner becomes their “mother”.

    How hard would your wife fight to “own” her kids, in this situation? And, if your wife would fight tooth-and-nail against this (as I assume she would), how is that different to a gay couple wanting desperately for the law to recognise them as parents?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. Gulag1917 (1,083 comments) says:

    I am sure gay adoption will be a hit the only problem is that people often give lip service to trends. Give it some time and it will die a natural death.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. bereal (3,137 comments) says:

    Ouch!

    Poor old bhudson,
    copped a good old boxing around the ears from Harriet.

    Bet that hurt.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. UpandComer (537 comments) says:

    Fought the good fight a little today at the standard. This will be my last post for a long while. I note that in order for your opinion to matter you have to have some standing. Regardless of how excellent, coherent and reasonable my opinions may one day be as I read more and learn more, they won’t mean a thing if I don’t get some paper and some respecterino :) So no more political blog comments, although I will read now and then. You’re the man DPF, I’ve seen you around Welly, and I appreciate the good work you do and have done, and will keep doing! I agree with you totally on gay adoption, practically word for word. I’ve evolved on this issue a huge amount in the last 2 to 3 years, and I agree with your thoughts.

    Anyways a hundered or so comments is more then enough until I’ve earned some ethos.

    Good luck crazy internet people with your awesome names.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  117. SGA (1,252 comments) says:

    @ag – “But on the issue of why legal status may matter (aside from the very real legal implications that it can have … for instance, in your own case, what would happen if your wife died and her ex-husband (and the children’s “father”) then sought custody?)”

    In my experience, what would happen is what the family court decided would happen – for better or worse. There would be truckloads of talk about what’s in the child’s best interest (some of it actually relevant), I can guarantee that.

    I take your general point however.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  118. bhudson (4,741 comments) says:

    @Harriet,

    Just because ‘some’ hetro people fail as parents is not ‘good cause’ as to why homosexuals should then be allowed to adopt – infact it would more than likely reinforce reasons for them not too.Geeeez.

    Let’s be very clear here – what you have said because there is poor heterosexual parenting proves that homosexuals should not be allowed to adopt. A baseless statement, made even more repugnant by the complete ignorance it shows.

    Lazy arguement from lazy quarters !

    That would have required you to actually address the point Harriet. Which you did not.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  119. bhudson (4,741 comments) says:

    @bereal,

    Homos like you live in a parrallel universe.
    a sicko universe.

    I’m not as it happens (thanks for asking.) Well done on putting your bigotry out on display for everyone.

    copped a good old boxing around the ears from Harriet.

    I guess life looks quite different from the bottom of a bottle.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  120. Fletch (6,521 comments) says:

    1. The American Psychological Association has found no conclusive research to show that growing up in a single-sex household has any negative impact on a child’s development or mental well-being. They have also found no conclusive evidence to show that children growing up in a homosexual household are more likely to become homosexual. There is absolutely no evidence to show that being homosexual has any negative impact on the ability to look after a child, and has shown that they are just as able to provide supportive and healthy environments for children.

    That is because (as per my paste above) –

    the report analyzes the nature of the individuals who have been responsible for the various studies carried out thus far, demonstrating that the vast majority are either homosexuals themselves, or active in the gay-rights movement. Into this category fall all six of the six most prominent psychologists of the American Psychological Association, which, unsurprisingly is one of the organizations most strongly and vocally in favour of homosexual adoption.

    So, no surprises what the APA thinks…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  121. Harriet (5,200 comments) says:

    bhudson #

    Stop kidding yourself –

    I based my answer on your statement of “….of not providing the right balance/role modeling falls down due to the sad reality that so many hetero couples fail to do the same…”

    Note SAME – you admitted this previously @ bhudson 9:33.

    you were replying to this –

    “…Harriet (112) Says: 9:14 pm bhudson#

    bereal is right…admit it.They can’t be placed with a same sex couple as it is not in the child’s best interests.Research shows that they need both a mother and father as without one of them, they won’t have ‘half’ their needs ‘met’.

    Maybe they are just born that way :) …”

    And I based my opinion on this – Harriet 4:34

    “..Indeed, one must recall why adoption laws have been established in the first place. Because young children are so vulnerable, the aim of adoption has been to provide the child in question with a secure, permanent, legal family. The paramount concern in adoption has been the best interests of the child. Thus only the best families have been allowed to adopt, not just “good enough” families.The issue of homosexual fostering is really all about homosexual rights, not the interests and needs of children.

    Can a homosexual couple love and nurture a child? Undoubtedly many can. But that is not the issue. As the former vice president of the National Council for Adoption in the US has put it, “providing a nurturing environment is not enough. A homosexual parent cannot provide the parental experience of a parent of the opposite sex, and this is as critical to the child as anything else. When discussing a child’s needs, it is not just a discussion of what a particular parent can provide it is just as important to consider what a parent cannot provide and, in this case, it is half of a child’s needed parenting experience.”

    And on this – Harriet 4:55

    “…As two family experts and child psychologists put it: “While a compassionate and caring society always comes to the aid of motherless and fatherless families, a wise and loving society never intentionally creates fatherless or motherless families. But that is exactly what every same-sex family does and for no other reason than adults desire such families. No child-development theory says children need parents of the same gender – as loving as they might be – but rather that children need their mother and father….”

    As two family experts point out: “The two most loving mothers in the world can’t be a father to a little boy. Love can’t equip mothers to teach a little boy how to be a man. Likewise, the two most loving men can’t be a mother to a child.”

    They continue, “Love does little to help a man teach a little girl how to be a woman. Can you imagine two men guiding a young girl through her first menstrual cycle or helping her through the awkwardness of picking out her first bra? Such a situation might make for a funny television sitcom but not a very good real-life situation for a young girl.”

    One woman who was raised by lesbians now runs a support and recovery program for those coming out of the homosexual lifestyle and their families. She put it this way: “I realise that homosexuals feel they can give a child love and support that even many straight families can’t provide, but I’ve been there. I know the finger-pointing and the shame one carries. For years, you struggle with the thought that you might be a homosexual. People say ‘like mother, like daughter.’ Most of us become promiscuous to prove we’re straight.”

    http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2010/08/27/children-and-family-structure/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  122. bhudson (4,741 comments) says:

    @Harriet,

    And I based my opinion on this – Harriet 4:34?..
    And on this – Harriet 4:55

    Thank you for illustrating my point of this morning so aptly Harriet. You were not answering my point at all – which was parental failure amongst heterosexual parents undermines the position that it requires a male and female to make effective parents. Instead, you simply regurgitated your earlier position which in no way addressed the point, but merely restated the original position which my point questioned.

    In other words, you didnt address the point. At all Harriet.

    To make matters worse, you claimed that poor parenting on the part of heterosexual couples proves that homosexual couples should not be allowed to adopt. That logic defies all logic.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  123. Griff (8,419 comments) says:

    There is only two sides to all the homosexual debates we have had recently
    1Homos are bad
    2Who cares about sexual orientation
    Logic or truth does not enter into the first only bigotry

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  124. Harriet (5,200 comments) says:

    bhudson #

    The fact is, if some lesbians[the one’s who don’t like males] raise a little boy, it is almost certain that he will be feminized, as it is natural of a women ‘to nuture and protect children away from harm’.

    And on the other hand, they would ‘naturally protect’ a little girl by masculinizing them so she cannot later be ‘harmed’.

    And that is how the ‘genderless, and homosexualizing’ of society is being helped along.

    ‘Compassion’ ‘tolerance’ ‘differance’ ‘genderless’ ‘acceptance’ is the newspeak to effect this social change as before all social change comes the language.

    It won’t work.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  125. Harriet (5,200 comments) says:

    bhudson #

    That’s crap.
    Here it is again for you……..you said it……not me.

    “…..of not providing the right balance/role modeling falls down due to the sad reality that so many hetero couples fail to do the same…”

    In your world of repetition, it seems that rightbalance/role modeling is of no importance……after you’ve first said it that is !

    I’ll say it again so it sinks in –

    “Just because SOME people ‘fail’ as parents in ‘role modeling’ does NOT make a case for homosexual parenting, infact, it would even reinforce why they shouldn’t.”

    You did say ‘FAIL’ didn’t you ?

    Yep…bhudson…..YOU DID !

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  126. bhudson (4,741 comments) says:

    Harriet,

    I’m sorry that English fails you. I really am.

    The very clear message was that there are heterosexual parents who fail to deliver the balance and role modeling that you claimed that homosexual parents could not and that only a heterosexual couple could. Therefore the English is quite acceptable that they “fail to do the same”

    You can try to fixate on words all you like. All you achieve is to highlight your inability to comprehend the English language.

    And I’ll put is again in your own words just so that you and others can be clear that you stated that poor parenting by heterosexual couples is validation for why a homosexual couple should not be allowed to adopt:

    Just because ‘some’ hetro people fail as parents is not ‘good cause’ as to why homosexuals should then be allowed to adopt – infact it would more than likely reinforce reasons for them not too.Geeeez.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  127. bereal (3,137 comments) says:

    Harriet,
    spot on, but, bhudson will still not get it because he doesn’t want to, even when it is spelled out
    for him chapter and verse. His, ‘some hetero parents fail, therefore homosexual parents are good,’
    argument is ridiculous.

    There are none so blind as those that will not see.

    i bet dear old bhudson believes in multiculturalism as well.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  128. Harriet (5,200 comments) says:

    bhudson # 10:48

    “….Thank you for illustrating my point of this morning so aptly Harriet. You were not answering my point at all – which was . Instead, you simply regurgitated your earlier position which in no way addressed the point, but merely restated the original position which my point questioned.

    In other words, you didnt address the point. At all Harriet.

    To make matters worse, you claimed that poor parenting on the part of heterosexual couples proves that homosexual couples should not be allowed to adopt. That logic defies all logic…..”

    “Parental failure’ ?

    You simply changed from a previous arguement based on balance/role modeling to now useing the general term ‘parenting’ to debase everything I’ve said.

    But that’s NOT what I’ve said at all -even prior to you turning up- about gays ‘loving and nurturing children’.

    Many of them can – but that’s NOT the point – it’s about the needs of the child being MET.

    Here it is again for you –

    “….Can a homosexual couple love and nurture a child? Undoubtedly many can. But that is not the issue. As the former vice president of the National Council for Adoption in the US has put it, “providing a nurturing environment is not enough. A homosexual parent cannot provide the parental experience of a parent of the opposite sex, and this is as critical to the child as anything else. When discussing a child’s needs, it is not just a discussion of what a particular parent can provide it is just as important to consider what a parent cannot provide and, in this case, it is half of a child’s needed parenting experience.”

    Gay parenting -as this man claims- is simply NOT ENOUGH, children need both a mother and father FIGURES.

    “…parental failure amongst heterosexual parents undermines the position that it requires a male and female to make effective parents…”

    You moron…all you are doing is demeaning homosexuals if you can ONLY base an arguement of homosexual parenting on the failures of others to parent.

    Homosexual adoption and marriage are very divisive matters within the gay ‘community’ – go check it out.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  129. bhudson (4,741 comments) says:

    Keep spinning Harriet. As long as you believe it, you’ll be fine

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  130. Harriet (5,200 comments) says:

    bhudson # 11:37

    “….Just because ‘some’ hetro people fail as parents is not ‘good cause’ as to why homosexuals should then be allowed to adopt – infact it would more than likely reinforce reasons for them not too.Geeeez…”

    Listen idiot – you know full f***** well WE were talking about the ‘gender roles’ in parenting when I said that.I had quoted previously that “many homosexuals could ‘nurture’ children”.

    It was NOT a general term that ‘homosexuals’ could not ‘nurture’ in ANY WAY whatsoever.

    I stand by that, and I think too, that so would homosexual couples who are thinking of adoption, as it then goes to show how hard it is to fulfill ALL the reguirements that ALL children NEED to thrive !

    Should children from hetrosexual AND homosexual relationships end up not thriving as children ? Of course not !

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  131. Michael (913 comments) says:

    You anti-gay adoption people shouldn’t worry too much – the National Party National Conference passed a remit two years ago to “Keep it 18″ for the alcohol purchase age. A good number of National MPs are going to ignore it and vote for a split age or raising the age to 20.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  132. Shunda barunda (2,986 comments) says:

    [DPF: It is a topical issue]

    Ha!!

    You’ve made bloody sure of that!

    Tail wagging the dog indeed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  133. Mark (1,502 comments) says:

    Adoption is about the interests of The child. What concerns me is this proposal is about the interests of gay couples and has nothing to do with the interests of the children that they may adopt. Children are not property nor a right. It is true that this also applies to married couples but adopted kids have enough to deal with without having to deal with defending their gay parents lifestyle choice.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  134. Jeremy (319 comments) says:

    Welfare State
    Soak the Rich taxes
    WFF
    Universal State Health
    Universal State Education
    Anti-smacking
    Legalised prostitution
    ETS
    Foreshore Bill
    Electoral Finance Act
    Now:
    Gay Marriage
    Gay adoption

    What exactly are the differences between National and Labour at this point?

    And the only “conservative” party left opposed to asset sales! ACT’s financial literacy replaced by John Banks… What is a poor Conservative to do…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote