Geddis on adoption

March 25th, 2013 at 9:00 am by David Farrar

has a very informative blog post on the impact of Louisa Wall’s Marriage Bill on the adoption act. Professor Geddis writes:

A LGBT individual already may adopt a child under the Adoption Act 1955. Take the example of a lesbian woman who has a 6 month old nephew who is orphaned in a car crash, with that woman being named as the child’s guardian in the child’s parent’s will. That woman already can apply to become the child’s “parent” by way of a sole adoption order under s.3(1), and her sexuality will not be an issue in deciding whether or not such an order should be made. 

This is a key issue. There is no current ban or even reference to sexuality when it comes to adoptions. The only difference in the law will be both partners in a same sex relationship will be able to adopt (if they are married), rather than one partner adopt and the other become a guardian.

Last year there were only around 50 “stranger adoptions” in all of New Zealand to married couples. There are far, far more couples (straight and same-sex) wanting to adopt than there are children put up for adoption. So even when married same sex couples are permitted to “stranger adopt”, the number of children placed with a same sex couple will be vanishingly small.

I doubt there will be even one a year.

Consequently, the true impact of the change wrought by the law is to open a route for same sex couples to jointly adopt a child under s.3(3). Because a married same sex couple will be “spouses” in terms of the Adoption Act (just as married straight couples are now), they can go to court together to seek an order that they both be recognised as the parents of a particular child.

Again, that is the only real change. Instead of one partner being the adoptive parent and one being a guardian, they’ll both be adoptive parents.

Louisa Wall says much the same in the NZ Herald:

The only change that will occur if my bill passes is that if a couple marry, they will be deemed “spouses” and they qualify as joint applicants for an adoption order. That means both parents will have the same status under the law …

 

 

Tags: , ,

201 Responses to “Geddis on adoption”

  1. eszett (2,337 comments) says:

    In other words, the end of western civilisation and the immediate downfall of society. Riots, chaos, mayhem.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Andrei (2,506 comments) says:

    More lies from the promoters of this abomination.

    What this will allow is the creation of the fiction that a child has two mommies and no daddy on his or her birth certificate.

    Or in the case of the petri dish conceived to male variant of using reproductive technolgies the “two daddy” child will also be registered.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 22 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Brian Harmer (686 comments) says:

    Please specify the lie(s) you see in this article, Andrei. Which statements do you think are factually incorrect?

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. RRM (9,478 comments) says:

    Why does it matter to you Andrei, how some other child’s birth certificate is filled out?

    And more to the point, what business of yours is it?

    My daughter goes to a country school where a good 15% – 20% of the kids would have boozy, druggy, violent, criminal, downright inadequate parents that you presumably don’t have a problem with?!?

    Meanwhile, I’m thinking hard about how many gay couples I know who would be (or indeed, ARE) entirely capable of providing a safe, stable, nurturing home life for a child, with warmth and a work ethic and good food, and whom I would be happy for my kids to have a sleepover with their kids.

    Three ;-)

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. metcalph (1,384 comments) says:

    Weren’t you posting before that legal opinion was the Marriage Bill won’t have any effect on the Adoption Act because the Act still mentions Husbands and Wives? And to allow gay adoptions to take place was the point of Jacinda Arden’s bill?

    [DPF: No]

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Cato (1,094 comments) says:

    Some parents are bad caregivers. This has two obvious logical repurcussions:

    1 – gay couples should be allowed to adopt orphans;
    2 – any question about whether children thrive best when they have a mother and a father is irrelevant.

    What part of that is so hard to understand?

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Cato (1,094 comments) says:

    On reflection, I find myself completely won over by RRM’s reasoning. You can’t oppose gay couples adoption or orphans unless you also approve of every single negligent or abusive act by straight couples towards their natural children.

    It’s obvious if you think about it, because all gay couples are stable, loving and wealthy. They might bicker here and there in a humourous way, but they are invariably committed to each other and the only thing missing from their life is a baby. I know that’s the case because I saw it on TV sitcoms and that’s where I get all my ideas about life, history and politics from.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Urban Redneck (234 comments) says:

    Or in the case of the petri dish conceived to male variant of using reproductive technolgies the “two daddy” child will also be registered.

    Or in cases like that of Elton John’s “partner” Mr Furnish, who is to be named as the childs mother on the birth certificate ! Someday that child is going to develop into a thinking person and want to know who his real mother is and to perhaps not be part of these grotesque social experiments.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2263764/Elton-Johns-partner-David-Furnish-named-baby-Elijahs-mother-AGAIN-newborns-birth-certificate.html

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. David Garrett (6,463 comments) says:

    We get it DPF! You think “gay marriage” is an absolutely splendid idea with no downsides at all for society in general, or for the children of gay couples, whether conceived …ah… naturally, or adopted. We “totally” get that.

    [DPF: No. I think Andrew Geddis has pointed out that the only real impact of the law change is that a gay couple can jointly adopt, rather than have one adopt and one be a guardian. ]

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Cato (1,094 comments) says:

    Sorry Urban Redneck – you’re manifesting an inverted set of priorities and you’re on the wrong side of history. Polls of university students and political youth group leaders show that most young people disagree with you so that should settle the question. QED.

    I suppose you subscribe to that bigoted old view that the rearing of a child is some kind of duty, and that the only rights involved belong to the child and includes a right to a mother and father. I assume you don’t realise how backwards you sound?

    You’d probably bring back lynching ethnic minorities and reverse universal suffrage, if you had the chance. Don’t get me starting on anti-miscegenation. At the very least, you mustthink that gay people should have no contact with children. Why else would you deny that adoption and parenting is about the fulfilment of the would-be parents?

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. RRM (9,478 comments) says:

    I know that’s the case because I saw it on TV sitcoms and that’s where I get all my ideas about life, history and politics from.

    Gee… and I thought I’d made it easy for you to avoid making this fallacy, when I said “couples I know.” Not “fictional couples I saw on some stupid sitcom.” :-)

    So you, Cato, you have no problems with the large number of straight couples who are absolutely shithouse as parents and are currently already fucking their kids up day in, day out…. but for some reason you would not want ANY gays raising kids, no matter what their character and their quality as people may be? And you think THAT is something worth fighting against?

    Interesting…

    I think you are thoroughly dishonest, and your objections are not about the good of the children at all, but solely about your revulsion for gays. Am I right?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. kowtow (7,656 comments) says:

    Yes ezset We are witnessing the downfall of western civilisation.Riots chaos and mayhem.

    This directly stemming from progressive policies that the likes of the Clintons,Blairs and EU elites have persued.

    They call it equality.It is applied to all fields of social policy. Including bank lending and housing.You can own a house you can’t afford,you can have a standard of living you didn’t work for etc

    In the west there is declining population due to “lifestyle”. Women in the work place ,(equality and feminsim) have fewer children,people don’t marry and no longer have stable relationships .

    Indigenous populations are being replaced by immigrant ones ,many are Muslim who don’t share traditional western values and certainly don’t share “progressive” values.
    Multiculturalism is one of the progressive values enabling this .

    In summary riots,chaos and mayhem.I’m glad you as a progressive do see the consequences of your support for this madness.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Cato (1,094 comments) says:

    I’m dishonest?

    I said that **I** got my views from television instead of empirical research about the fragility of gay relationships. I don’t deny that you’re basing your view on this important public policy question on the basis of knowing a few gay couples (incidentally, I don’t think we have a problem with over-representation of Maori in prison, because I only have one friend who’s been to jail and he’s white).

    Instead, I accuse YOU of dishonesty – because twice now you have said that people who oppose gay adoption think that straight couples should be allowed to abuse and neglect their kids. It’s a total non-sequitor and nobody ever said that. Do you think it’s logically possible to oppose both gay adoption and child abuse by straight couples? Are you a fool or a knave?

    I will retract my accusation if you can point to just one instance of any person on this thread being pro-child abuse. Go.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    Andrew makes the point that:

    There are far, far more couples (straight and same-sex) wanting to adopt than there are children put up for adoption. So even when married same sex couples are permitted to “stranger adopt”, the number of children placed with a same sex couple will be vanishingly small.

    So, having the right to adopt is one thing, but discrimination could mean that few same sex couples are chosen by birth parents giving up kids for adoption.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. RRM (9,478 comments) says:

    I’m not saying poster XXX is pro child abuse Cato.

    I’m saying it’s utterly false and dishonest to oppose gay marriage claiming there would be / could be / might be a child welfare issue.

    That right there is the true non sequitur. Gays aren’t New Zealand’s child abuse problem. Straight people are.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. eszett (2,337 comments) says:

    yes, kowtow, I am looking forward to watching the riots and looting on Queen St once this law has passed. I have already stashed popcorn.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Andrei (2,506 comments) says:

    Gays aren’t New Zealand’s child abuse problem. Straight people are.

    But “gays” can’t have children RRM ergo not many “gays” are bringing children up to abuse.

    Kids should as of right have both a mother and a father and the deliberate elimination, through deceit and for reasons of adult selfishness is a form of child abuse in itself.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. RRM (9,478 comments) says:

    Tell me more about adult selfishness Andrei.

    With references to the reasons why straight people want to have kids as opposed to the reasons why gays do.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. kowtow (7,656 comments) says:

    Birth certificates?

    No problem .Courts in Europe have already held that they can reissued to show the current status of a person rather than the sex they were at birth.

    We are at the stage now that official documents can be altered,all in the name of equality.

    What next? Men will be able to marry men,oh wait.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Cato (1,094 comments) says:

    RRM – fool it is.

    I’m not sure why you’re bringing ‘gay marriage’ into it. That battle been decided (for better or worse).

    What people are talking about now is the fact that it’s not controversial to say that children thrive best when they have both a mother and father in a stable relationship. It’s a reasonable inference, if you subscribe to the view that adoption is about the welfare of the adoptee and not the fulfilment of the adoptor, that it is wrong to deliberately put children in a situation where they are denied that just because of some abstract idea about equality. That’s not unreasonable – even in the era of ‘Modern Family’.

    Your response to this is: “So you, Cato, you have no problems with the large number of straight couples who are absolutely shithouse as parents and are currently already fucking their kids up day in, day out…”

    I’m sorry. That makes no sense at all. All I can say is begone with you – you have nothing useful to add to this

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Urban Redneck (234 comments) says:

    The New Left often sneer that it is conservatives who want government in the bedroom. As a conservative I genuinely wish sexual eccentrics would adhere to their word and actually confine their aberrant behavior to the bedroom.

    Instead, as is some countries overseas who are further down the moral abyss, we see sex education for kindergarten kids, instruction against heterosexism (the bigoted assumption that heterosexuality is normal), lessons in fisting and rimming for highschoolers (at Northcote College, two homosexual representatives from NZAF spoke to students about masturbation and handed out free lubricant and condoms (strawberry flavoured)), carefully sanitized portrayals of homosexual lifestyles on TV, mandatory transgendered bathrooms and other pressing public-policy priorities – all for the most part enacted using the legislative and financing powers of the state. It is the New Left who are obsessed with bringing sex out of the bedroom and into the restroom, bathroom, classroom and living room.

    http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2009/12/fistgate-ii-high-school-students-given-fisting-kits-at-kevin-jennings-glsen-conference/

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Artifice (1 comment) says:

    Cato – “What people are talking about now is the fact that it’s not controversial to say that children thrive best when they have both a mother and father in a stable relationship.” Actually what more and more studies are saying is that the make up of the couple doesn’t matter – what does matter is having a loving stable family life.

    American Academy of Pediatrics say:

    A great deal of scientific research documents there is no cause-and-effect relationship between parents’ sexual orientation and children’s well-being, according to the AAP policy. In fact, many studies attest to the normal development of children of same-gender couples when the child is wanted, the parents have a commitment to shared parenting, and the parents have strong social and economic support.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. RRM (9,478 comments) says:

    Look at you Cato – it’s like you didn’t read my reply at all…

    Gays aren’t the ones abusing children… so why pretend there’s a child welfare issue?

    All I can say is begone with you

    Yeah I thought as much… :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. cha (3,779 comments) says:

    I fist on the first date.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Cato (1,094 comments) says:

    “Gays aren’t the ones abusing children” [citation needed].

    Anyway, RRM, child welfare concerns more than the absence of direct abuse or neglect. Believe it or not.

    Do you understand that?

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. RRM (9,478 comments) says:

    An absence of abuse or a neglect would be a pretty good first base to aim for though wouldn’t it Cato?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Cato (1,094 comments) says:

    You tell me where I am going wrong RRM.

    1 – Children’s welfare is best provided for when (all other things being equal) they are raised by a mother and father in a stable relationship.

    2 – Gay couples, by definition, involve two people of the same-sex.

    3 – There is a surfeit of traditional married couples who wish to adopt orphans and other unrelated children – and likely always will be.

    4 – In deciding who should adopt such a child, the only frame of reference is the welfare of the child.

    Please justify the legalisation stranger adoption by gay couples:

    A – solely by reference to the welfare and best interests of the child; and

    B – without reference to the feelings and self-validation of the prospective adoptors.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Cato (1,094 comments) says:

    RRM -

    “An absence of abuse or a neglect would be a pretty good first base to aim for though wouldn’t it Cato?”

    Absolutely. When DPF does a post about child abuse and neglect I can assure you I won’t be posting in favour of either.

    I suppose in that post you will finally reveal your reasoning on the question of same-sex stranger adoption.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Boglio (76 comments) says:

    [DPF: No. I think Andrew Geddis has pointed out that the only real impact of the law change is that a gay couple can jointly adopt, rather than have one adopt and one be a guardian. ]

    So why did they not just change the Adoption Act???

    [DPF: The Adoption Act is 50 years out of date and needs massive reform. The consequential change from the Marriage Act Bill relates to one narrow area only - the definition of a married couple for the purposes of a joint adoption order]

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Mark (1,368 comments) says:

    Cato You are Correct to a point. In NZ birth mothers have the determining say in who can adopt their child should they want to do that. The gay marriage bill however you look at it has created a change to the adoption Law without the opportunity for proper debate. It may be according to those who support gay marriage be inconsequential because of the low numbers of adoptions but it is a social change worthy of debate on its own.

    Adoption is not an issue of gay rights. It is an issue of children’s rights and it is only in that context that it should be debated.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. eszett (2,337 comments) says:

    Please justify the legalisation stranger adoption by gay couples:

    A – solely by reference to the welfare and best interests of the child; and

    When the best available option and the best interest of child is served by an adoption is a same sex couple, why would you be against it?
    You seem to think that a same sex couple can never be the best option.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. RRM (9,478 comments) says:

    That’s easy Cato.

    We live in a non-ideal, real world where all other things are never completely equal.

    I have no idea how adoptive parents are selected now, but presumably there is some kind of process where all of the applicants are considered and the “best” applicants are chosen, whatever that means.

    If a gay couple emerge from that process as better candidates than whatever other couples were in the running, I would have slightly more faith in that process to look after the kid’s interests than your blind assertion No.1 that you keep making.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Cato (1,094 comments) says:

    Good reasoning Mark.

    However, I am not quite sure it will be as inconsequential as one things. I refer to the above remark by Professor Geddis – “There are far, far more couples (straight and same-sex) wanting to adopt than there are children put up for adoption. So even when married same sex couples are permitted to “stranger adopt”, the number of children placed with a same sex couple will be vanishingly small.”

    What’s wrong with that reasoning?

    Well, for starters, the facts of life – in their bigoted way – are conservative. Two people of the same-sex cannot make a child. Accordingly, why we expect a disproportionate number of applicants for stranger adoption to be gay couples? Certainly, it is logical to assume that gay couples will want to adopt in greater proportion to natural couples.

    So the extent of the consequences for stranger adoption will depend on how prevalent homosexuality really is. There are polls that show that young adults – the wave of the future we are supposed to genuflect before – believe that as much as 30% of the population is gay. A more common figure cited is about 10%. Most rigourous studies indicate that it’s about 1% – 3%.

    Really, it depends on whether you prefer data and scholarship to sit-coms in how you think about the world.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Cato (1,094 comments) says:

    Eszett and RRM – see point 1.

    “Children’s welfare is best provided for when (all other things being equal) they are raised by a mother and father in a stable relationship.”

    That is the basis of the conclusion. Do you disagree with the assertion?

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. RRM (9,478 comments) says:

    No, not as it stands. That is overly simplistic and no matter how much you might wish it to be true, it is not.

    I heard a story recently about a boy who was the child of a solo mum, who made millions when he grew up, and is now running the country…?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Andrei (2,506 comments) says:

    There are at least two jokers in the pack here, by sleight of hand we are directed into thinking about “stranger adoption” and because the numbers are so low calmly reassured that this is a non issue.

    But

    There are the “reproductive technology” babies, we actually pay, via taxes, for Lesbian couples use of this technology today and maybe even for gay males use of it, who knows, we a deliberately kept in the dark over these matters

    and there are overseas adoptions whereby “non traditional” families are formed with kids removed from their motherland and imported as designer children for the self indulgent upper middle class.

    And we are being diverted from thinking about this and the implications of this.

    Never ever trust politicians, they are by nature deceitful and liars and will pull the wool over your eyes every chance they get

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. RRM (9,478 comments) says:

    Andrei;

    Gay males don’t have a uterus. No amount of reproductive technology is going to work on them ;-)

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Cato (1,094 comments) says:

    Right. So a gay couple will always be somewhat deficient to a straight couple in that area when it comes to child-rearing. There is enough research to show that it is, in fact, a huge factor in whether a child grows up well-socialised and adjusted. See, for example:

    Sarkadi, A., Kristiansson, R., Oberklaid, F., & Bremberg, S.(2008). Fathers’ involvement and children’s developmental outcomes: a systematic review of longitudinal studies. Acta Paediatrica 97, 153-158.

    Granting that – and granting that we have a big surfeit of straight couples who want to adopt, why would else would you want to upset the status quo? If there was a massive surplus of orphaned children who would otherwise go without homes … but that is emphatically not the case.

    But it’s not really about child welfare. It never has been. Instead, it’s about:

    1 – subordinating everything to adult happiness; and

    2 – feeling sanctimonious by ridiculing conservatives.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Andrei (2,506 comments) says:

    Gay males don’t have a uterus. No amount of reproductive technology is going to work on them

    So the stork bought Elton John and his “wife”, David Furnish their two little boys RRM?

    Gee you don’t know very much do you?

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Cato (1,094 comments) says:

    “I heard a story recently about a boy who was the child of a solo mum, who made millions when he grew up, and is now running the country…?”

    RRM – I apologise for intimating that you were being dishonest. It now seems as if you were simply never taught how to reason. Why else would you base everything you believe on anecdotes?

    By your logic, we should encourage absentee fathers because then all of their kids can grow up to be millionaires and prime ministers.

    Face it – laws have to be applied with a broad brush. They have to be based on norms of expected behaviour and outcomes. Otherwise they’re not laws and we don’t live under a system of law. I’m sure there are some 14 year olds who would be better drivers than some 25 year olds. That’s not a good reason for lowering the driving age to 14.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. RRM (9,478 comments) says:

    But it’s not really about child welfare. It never has been. Instead, it’s about:

    1 – subordinating everything to adult happiness; and

    2 – feeling sanctimonious by ridiculing conservatives.

    If you say it forcefully enough, maybe it will become true? ;-)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Cato (1,094 comments) says:

    Tell me how I’m wrong? If you accept that a child needs a mother and a father then why else would you cause him or her to be acquired by an unrelated gay couple in the absence of material need?

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. RRM (9,478 comments) says:

    Why else would you base everything you believe on anecdotes?

    you got me there. Yes, I do base a lot of what I believe in on things that I see with my own eyes to be true.

    You’re a christian aren’t you Cato?

    By your logic, we should encourage absentee fathers because then all of their kids can grow up to be millionaires and prime ministers.

    LOL – it’s funny that you came up with that, barely a couple of minutes after whinging about others “sanctimoniously ridiculing conservatives”

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Cato (1,094 comments) says:

    Why is it funny to point out that your rejoinder to the idea that children need a mother and a father (that the PM didn’t have the latter and he turned out okay) represents the substitution of an anecdote for data-driven reasoning?

    Hopefully, it’s because you are laughing at yourself.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. RRM (9,478 comments) says:

    Tell me how I’m wrong? If you accept that a child needs a mother and a father then why else would you cause him or her to be acquired by an unrelated gay couple in the absence of material need?

    In your rush to remind me that I accepted your premise, you failed to note that I didn’t.

    Whoever gets to decide whether a child is adopted by couple A, Couple B or Couple C should be someone who has seen A, B and C and assessed their character. If a gay couple are going to be rejected for adoption then that is fine, but they should be rejected by that person. NOT by the likes of you and I having generalised theoretical discussions about whether all gays are good, bad or indifferent on 3rd-party blogs.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. RRM (9,478 comments) says:

    data-driven reasoning?

    There is no data available on the gay and straight couples who will front up tomorrow wanting to adopt a child. Only historical data on a whole lot of other people vaguely like them.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Cato (1,094 comments) says:

    We know that children are prejudiced when they don’t have both a mother or a father. We know that some children will overcome that handicapp, but there is no way to foresee in advance which children will and which children won’t. The only thing we know is that it will have that effect and we can work out why.

    That is the proper basis on which to lay down a rule under a system of law.

    Would you support this driver licensing regime?

    Whoever gets to decide whether a driver licence is granted to person A, person B or person C should be someone who has seen A, B and C and assessed their driving ability. If a 14 year old is to be rejected for a licence then that is fine, but they should be rejected on the basis of their driving ability NOT by the likes of you and I having generalised theoretical discussions about whether young teenagers are good, bad or indifferent drivers on 3rd-party blogs.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. eszett (2,337 comments) says:

    Cato (529) Says:
    March 25th, 2013 at 11:24 am
    Eszett and RRM – see point 1.

    “Children’s welfare is best provided for when (all other things being equal) they are raised by a mother and father in a stable relationship.”

    Emphasis mine.

    You yourself state a qualifier, by which it would be possible that an adoption by a same sex couple would indeed be in the best interest of a child.
    I think you will find it hard to find two couples where all things are equal except for their sexuality.

    You will have to consider all circumstances and factors in such a decision. There is no reason why same sex couple should be excluded from the get-go.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. AG (1,784 comments) says:

    “Children’s welfare is best provided for when (all other things being equal) they are raised by a mother and father in a stable relationship.”

    “We know that children are prejudiced when they don’t have both a mother or a father.”

    That is an assertion. The evidence for it is not as strong as you claim. For instance, the Sarkadi et al study you cite looks at the effect that a lack of a father figure has in studies of straight families (i.e. where the mum either raises the child alone, or with a boyfriend who is not regarded as the child’s “father” in either legal or psychological terms). So it tells us nothing about the relative impact on child welfare of a straight couple vis-a-vis a same sex one.

    And, in fact, there is evidence that the claim you make is false: http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/children-in-gay-adoptions-at-no-disadvantage-8518004.html

    Consequently, beginning a chain of argument with this claim is highly likely to result in a faulty conclusion.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. RRM (9,478 comments) says:

    Yes I would support a driver licensing regime based on assessing actual ability rather than anything else!!

    Most of the very worst driving I see on the roads is NOT done by the very young drivers..

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Redbaiter (7,645 comments) says:

    ‘..The typical liberal has decided that, to be chic and “with it,” he must scorn religious faith. But that doesn’t relieve him of his need to believe in something. What marks him as a liberal, as opposed to some other kind of arrogant asshole, is his choice of politics and government as his faith, and the improvement of others (whether they like it or not) as his crusade…’

    http://preemptiveoffenses.blogspot.com.au/2013/03/bulls-eye.html

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Cato (1,094 comments) says:

    AG, I know it’s an assertion. That’s why at 11.24 I labelled it an “assertion”.

    It’s what’s know as a ‘premise’ and if you want to debate the trueness of the premise we can do that.

    BTW I wouldn’t put too much weight on my qualifier, it’s not a load bearing wall unless you can determine, in advance, which child or children will rise above the handicapp of not having a father or mother.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Lucia Maria (2,208 comments) says:

    Bravo, Cato!

    Enjoyed reading your comments today. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. AG (1,784 comments) says:

    It’s what’s know as a ‘premise’ and if you want to debate the trueness of the premise we can do that.

    I do want to debate the trueness of that premise, and await you supplying evidence that actually supports it (seeing as you are proposing it as the basis for a chain of argument) and that counters the evidence that I have supplied negating it.

    In providing that evidence, I’d also warn you against your already demonstrated sloppiness in conflating a child “not having a father or mother” with “a child having two fathers or two mothers”. This is not the same thing.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Mark (1,368 comments) says:

    The wee fly in the ointment in presupposing that Kids will come through this experiment unscathed is that Kids in theSchool yard are not socially liberated politically correct urban liberals who give a lot of thought to the impact that their comments have on their adopted peers.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. AG (1,784 comments) says:

    Mark,

    All the more reason to normalise same sex relationships and parental roles so that the basis for such teasing ends. For the sake of the children. Which is what you are really concerned with, I am sure.

    I also would note that being the child of Christians increasingly is the cause of teasing at school. For a similar reason, I assume, we also have to stop Christians from adopting children. Sad … but it’s best for the children.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. eszett (2,337 comments) says:

    BTW I wouldn’t put too much weight on my qualifier, it’s not a load bearing wall unless you can determine, in advance, which child or children will rise above the handicapp of not having a father or mother.

    Of course you wouldn’t, because it completely undermines what you are asserting here and trying to establish here.

    It is in fact “load bearing”, because there are a lot of factors to be considered in a child adoption. A same sex marriage is just not an excluding factor. There are way many other factors that can be consider advantageous and disadvantageous. Simply stating that a same sex couple is per se disqualified from adoption is just nonsense based on your prejudice.

    As proven there are heaps of children raised by same sex couples to no disadvantage to the children at all

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Cato (1,094 comments) says:

    Great! Let argument be engaged.

    I must say that I do think this is the proper ground to debate on. It removes the smokescreen that progressives so commonly rely on – that is, masking their real beliefs by downplaying the effects of their proposed reform. We saw this an awful lot in the repeal of section 59 debate. Law professors would say “Of course, nobody thinks the police would bother prosecuting a harassed mum who smacked her kid lightly in the supermarket!” but when you pressed them, they would reluctantly agree that they did think that this kind of correction ought to be illegal.

    In the same way, the real position of progressives is that women and men are fungible, distinguishable only by the shape of their body parts and the social constructs society forces on them. That is the nub of the argument, and the sooner we get down to it, the better.

    Let us stipulate that my ‘demonstrated sloppiness’ instead relates to the paradigm of closed adoption. While I accept that this paradigm is not in vogue anymore, the fact remains that, to my knowledge, there is no express statutory provision for open adoption in New Zealand. Instead, the Adoption Act provides that there is a fiction in law that the adoptee is the child of the adoptors as if the latter had given birth to the former. I am open to correction if that has changed and expect a further explanation if it has not.

    Secondly, let us stipulate that the rigours of social science have been tested when it comes to assessing the well-being of the children of gay couples. The reason for that is obvious enough – homosexuality is rare. Despite the fact that our universities are churning out young people who believe that 30% of the populace is gay, the reality is that the figure is more like 2%. That means that the gay couples who are analysed in studies are more likely to be self-selecting and less likely to be representative.

    Nevertheless, I cite the NFF study completed last year. While hardly perfect, it is one of the few population based studies that exist and did a better job than most in:

    - not oversampling white, well-educated, lesbian couples living in upscale areas. The finding of the NFFS was that the outcomes for children raised by gay parents were significantly worse than for children raised by married mothers and fathers; and

    - controlling for income, age, race, gender and geography.

    The NFFS found that the welfare outcomes for children raised in same-sex households was significantly worse than for those raised in traditional families of married mothers and fathers.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Mark (1,368 comments) says:

    AG you miss the point. what you say is all good in theory but in practice it doesn’t work that way. Kids can be cruel both deliberately and by accident. Having two adopted kids I mistakenly thought that they would not be subject to the sort of crap that was dished out when they were too young to have the “oh just fuck off” strategy.

    Add to defending why their mothers didn’t didn’t want them the defence of their parents lifestyle and you ask a hell of a lot from a 6/7 year old who is desperate to fit in. Still it is all about the rights of adults.

    In a perfect world we would all be tolerant liberals but you tend to grow into that.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Dennis Horne (2,059 comments) says:

    Any evidence homosexual men are adopting “stray” children?

    How long before homosexuals demand “designer” children as of right? Real enginerring.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. AG (1,784 comments) says:

    I cite the NFF study completed last year.

    Well, that’s hardly a “citation” … I assume you mean Ragnerus’ “New Family Structures Survey” (or NFSS) … but if you don’t, try to give a bit more detail about your sources.

    But if you do mean the NFSS study, you will (of course) be aware of the fact that a member of the editorial board of the journal that published it has said it is so flawed as to be invalid (http://chronicle.com/blogs/percolator/controversial-gay-parenting-study-is-severely-flawed-journals-audit-finds/30255), whilst the UK’s Christian Medical Fellowship group notes (http://www.cmfblog.org.uk/2012/06/22/same-sex-parenting-controversies-with-the-latest-research/):

    However, in order to increase the sample size of children who have had a same-sex parent (a very small group), Regnerus included respondents if they reported that their parent ever had a same-sex relationship. Although this decision has a lot of advantages, it makes comparisons across groups somewhat of a challenge. The same-sex parental group is in fact comprised of young adults who experienced multiple family forms and transitions, making it harder to isolate the effects of living with a lesbian mother from experiencing divorce, remarriage, or living with a single parent.

    There’s then this comment from a Canadian researcher on the issue (http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/302749/regnerus-debate-douglas-w-allen):

    Given how small the population of same-sex parents is, given how many different channels children might take to find themselves in a family with two parents of the same sex, and given how much data it takes to sort through all of these issues, the bottom line is this: We’ve got a long way to go before we can answer the question: Are children better off, the same, or worse off in same-sex families compared to intact biological families?

    So, at best it would seem that the most that can be said for your asserted premise is that we cannot know whether or not it is true that in general children do better when raised by a man and a woman as opposed to two men or two women.

    But then there is the UK study I linked to earlier (http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/ive-got-two-dads-and-they-adopted-me). This would seem particularly relevant because it is directly comparing apples with apples in the context of the current issue – children adopted by same sex couples as against children adopted by opposite sex couples. And it finds no problems exist.

    So … your move. What evidence is there to believe the UK study is wrong?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. AG (1,784 comments) says:

    Mark,

    I accept everything you say is true. But I don’t see what follows from it, or what you think follows from it.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Scott (1,710 comments) says:

    First we were told in 1986 when homosexuality was decriminalised that it was to stop gay people being discriminated against. What consenting adults do in private is their own business.

    Then in 1994 we were told that consenting adults in private should be able to have their relationship solemnised in public through civil union. But marriage would remain sacrosanct.

    Then in 2012 we were told that civil unions wasn’t enough and that gay should be able to get married to each other.

    Now in 2013 we are told that marriage isn’t enough and that gays should be able to adopt children. What happened to what consenting adults do shouldn’t affect everyone else? Now we are involving the children.

    I can think of few more morally hazardous situations than allowing 2 gay men to adopt an unrelated boy. Have we all gone crazy?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Cato (1,094 comments) says:

    “Still it is all about the rights of adults.”

    Mark you have hit the nail on the head. The test is this: What is there a need to revise the law to enable gay couples to adopt orphans? Is it because so many orphans or abandoned children are growing up in orphanages with no married couples to adopt them? Or is it because gay couples want to have children and are denied that by nature?

    Understandable though it may be, the latter is an inversion of the traditional rationale of the understanding of adoption.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. kowtow (7,656 comments) says:

    mark @114

    And that’s why other laws are passed to legislate that “offensiveness” or hate be made illegal.
    Hate speech and hate crimes are now big news.

    It’s not so much the crime itself now as the motive.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. eszett (2,337 comments) says:

    Now in 2013 we are told that marriage isn’t enough and that gays should be able to adopt children. What happened to what consenting adults do shouldn’t affect everyone else? Now we are involving the children.

    Gays can already adopt, have been adopting and will be adopting in future, regardless of same sex marriage or not.

    I can think of few more morally hazardous situations than allowing 2 gay men to adopt an unrelated boy. Have we all gone crazy?

    Why? What is “morally hazardous” about it? I can imagine what your answer will be, so would therefore adopting a girl be okay with you?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. eszett (2,337 comments) says:

    Or is it because gay couples want to have children and are denied that by nature?

    Understandable though it may be, the latter is an inversion of the traditional rationale of the understanding of adoption.

    How so? “Traditional rationale” of adoption is about straight couples wanting to have children, but are denied that by nature.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. AG (1,784 comments) says:

    What is there a need to revise the law to enable gay couples to adopt orphans?

    This isn’t the “need” behind the law change. It’s an incidental, and completely irrelevant, by-product of a law change being made for other reasons. If you can’t see this … well, I question either your intelligence or the background motive for your participation in this debate.

    On that note, still waiting for evidence that same sex adoptive couples cause worse outcomes for children than straight adoptive couples. Just whenever you are ready … .

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. Cato (1,094 comments) says:

    AG -

    Apologies while I attempt long posts on my phone and/or with limited time now that lunch is over. I’m sorry but lengthier fare will have to wait until after 5.00.

    However, while the Regnerus study had plenty of detractors, and indeed was not perfect, it has plenty of defenders who will recognise it for what it is – a genuine attempt at a population based study. If you think that a study of just 81, likely unrepresentative, couples is the same then there’s little point in continuing to discuss the matter. Let’s just point out that a University of Texas inquiry into the matter the the NFFS study found no scientific misconduct.

    If we come down to a battle of the experts then I suggest that, unless both parties are skilled in statistical modelling, the resulting debate is going to produce more heat than light. In such situations laypersons have to fall back on common sense and reasoning.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. AG (1,784 comments) says:

    In such situations laypersons have to fall back on common sense and reasoning.

    If the best that can be said for Ragnerus is “he did not commit scientific misconduct” … well, that’s hardly convincing, is it?

    But I accept your tacit surrender on the question of evidence for your claims and consequent acknowledgement that your entire argument is based on nothing more than the same sort of intuition that tells us the sun revolves around the earth, that a designer must have been behind the miracles of nature and that disease is the result of an imbalance of various humours in the body. I mean, it’s just common sense, innit?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. gump (1,491 comments) says:

    @Cato

    “What people are talking about now is the fact that it’s not controversial to say that children thrive best when they have both a mother and father in a stable relationship.”

    ——————–

    Actually that statement is controversial because it isn’t backed up by any serious evidence. You may feel it to be true, but you cannot demonstrate it to be true.

    It’s worth noting that our Prime Minister wasn’t raised by a mother and a father. Are you seriously suggesting that he hasn’t thrived? Seriously?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. Cato (1,094 comments) says:

    Sorry – I just want to clarify whether you accept that closed adoption is still the rule in this country? Just looking to see whether I had demonstrated sloppiness by referring to what I had thought the law requires.

    “It’s an incidental, and completely irrelevant, by-product of a law change being made for other reasons. If you can’t see this … well, I question either your intelligence or the background motive for your participation in this debate.”

    As to this point. It’s a smokescreen. First of all, I don’t accept it was an accident of the marriage law reform that adoption law was reformed too. The bills proponents were also advocates of enabling gay couples to acquire children through closed adoptions. I gather that you were in favour of that too.

    If not, would you confirm that you would have agreed to an amendment that redefined marriage but protected the substantive status-quo of the Adoption Act 1955? If not, it’s a bit of a cheat to say: “well, we could have done something about it if we had the foresight but it happened and it’s too late to do anything about it now.”

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. AG (1,784 comments) says:

    gump,

    As you’ll see, despite Cato’s repeated claims that what he says is “not controversial” and “a gay couple will always be somewhat deficient to a straight couple in that area when it comes to child-rearing. There is enough research to show that it is, in fact, a huge factor in whether a child grows up well-socialised and adjusted”, when pressed to actually substantiate his claims he can only point to a single, deeply criticised study that manfactured “gay households” in a highly artificial way.

    Then he waves a white flag and says “well, it’s just common sense” … which is always the argument of someone who has no basis for his claims other than “it just must be true!”

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Redbaiter (7,645 comments) says:

    “Are you seriously suggesting that he hasn’t thrived?”

    Man you people who cannot read are such a pain in the arse.

    NZ is going to have to bear for so long the dead weight of how many generations who have not been educated but have been indoctrinated and therefore cannot read or comprehend or do anything involving literacy with any degree of skill, and this situation will continue until education is finally torn from the grip of the left.

    He clearly did not say that “thriving” was impossible. He said IT WAS NOT CONTROVERSIAL to say that children thrive BEST when they have both a mother and a father in a stable relationship.

    And that is a statement “not backed up by evidence?”

    Get outta here you silly little progressive moron, you’re just wasting everyone’s time.

    Including this few minutes of mine.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. Cato (1,094 comments) says:

    Gump – this ground was covered above. Do you think that, all things being equal, it is better for a child to be raised by a solo parent or by two? For every John Key, how many kids are there who didn’t become Prime Minister? The plural of anecdote is not data.

    AG, if you want to define my acknowledgment that a debate on the relative merits of various studies is not likely to be helpful or productive as being a ‘tacit surrender’ then that’s your prerogative. It’s not much chop as a debating strategy, I’m afraid.

    I happen to think the NFFS study is worthwhile because it involved a random sample and was conducted on a large scale. It is qualitatively different than a study comprising a sample obtained by, for example, gathering up members of the same lesbian book club or getting a state-adoption agency to select the subjects. Was the study perfect? No. But that’s because it is difficult to obtain a large and random sample for such a small minority. However, the Regnerus study at least made an honest attempt to control the sample.

    Honest question: if the study had found that there was ‘no difference’ or a ‘comparitive advantage’ for children raised by gay couples do you think that it would have been the subject of the same vicious criticism in the entertainment industry?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. Cato (1,094 comments) says:

    Put it this way – if Regnerus has to be thrown out then every single study on the subject has to be thrown out also. You can criticise the study all you want, but it did a better job than most. On the whole, I prefer a flawed study that utilises random sampling to a study compairing a upscale, educated and self-selecting group to a random samples of another group.

    And if we come to that, then all we do have to rely on is common sense and reason. If you can’t see this … well, I question either your intelligence or the background motive for your participation in this debate.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. Andrei (2,506 comments) says:

    “Traditional rationale” of adoption is about straight couples wanting to have children, but are denied that by nature.

    WRONG!

    The rationale for adoption has always been to provide children who have been misfortunate enough not to have their biological parents able to care for them something as close as possible to what they have lost provided by another couple.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. Cato (1,094 comments) says:

    To quote the contemporary philosopher Roger Scruton:

    “[Adoption] is an act of sacrifice, performed for the benefit of the child, and with a view to providing that child with the normal comforts of home. Its purpose is not to gratify the parents, but to foster the child, by making him part of a family… Anything else would be an injustice to the child and an abuse of his innocence. Hence there are no such things as “adoption rights”. Adoption is the assumption of a duty, and the only rights involved are the rights of the child.”

    If you can’t see this … well, I question either your intelligence or the background motive for your participation in this debate.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. gump (1,491 comments) says:

    @Cato

    “Gump – this ground was covered above. Do you think that, all things being equal, it is better for a child to be raised by a solo parent or by two? For every John Key, how many kids are there who didn’t become Prime Minister? The plural of anecdote is not data.”

    ———————

    I believe that it is best for a child to be raised by a loving parent (or parents). I believe that this is more important that the parent’s gender.

    I would also note that the plural of anecdote *is* data. An anecdote is a piece of information (or datum), and multiple pieces of information are data.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. Cato (1,094 comments) says:

    Gump, that’s true enough as far as it goes – which isn’t very far. Data consists of information from, if not all relevant cases, then a representative sample. An anecdote is just a story – often with emotional appeal.

    I just happen to agree with James Q. Wilson (RIP) an empiricist and an academic who might even rival Andrew Geddis. On this subject, Wilson surveyed the literature and noted:

    “Almost everyone—a few retrograde scholars excepted—agrees that children in mother-only homes suffer harmful consequences: the best studies show that these youngsters are more likely than those in two-parent families to be suspended from school, have emotional problems, become delinquent, suffer from abuse, and take drugs. Some of these problems may arise from the economic circumstances of these one-parent families, but the best studies, such as those by Sara McLanahan and Gary Sandefur, show that low income can explain, at most, about half of the differences between single-parent and two-parent families. The rest of the difference is explained by a mother living without a husband.”

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. eszett (2,337 comments) says:

    WRONG!

    The rationale for adoption has always been to provide children who have been misfortunate enough not to have their biological parents able to care for them something as close as possible to what they have lost provided by another couple.

    Really? So why there are way more couples wanting to adopt then children available for adoption then.

    But I grant you that is another good rationale for adoption, the other side of the coin. And nothing says that a same sex couple cannot meet that rationale.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. ChardonnayGuy (1,137 comments) says:

    2 4 6 8, why are most of the toxic, severely dysfunctional parents that CYFS deals with straight?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. Cato (1,094 comments) says:

    Eszett – nobody denies that couples, straight and gay, might desire to adopt children. That is not the function and the purpose of the institution, however, which is not about adult happiness but about a duty society owes to children.

    As to Chardonnay Guy’s asinine question, I can only ask him what, between 1% and 30%, does he think is the prevalence of homosexuality in society? The rest he can work out for himself.

    Again, to return to James Q. Wilson:

    “The role of raising children is entrusted in principle to married heterosexual couples because after much experimentation—several thousand years, more or less—we have found nothing else that works as well. Neither a gay nor a lesbian couple can of its own resources produce a child; another party must be involved. What do we call this third party? A friend? A sperm or egg bank? An anonymous donor? There is no settled language for even describing, much less approving of, such persons.”

    That is a common sense observation buttressed by lots of data comparing the children of married couples to non-married couples (in the natural sense) and the best of the flawed date available comparing the children of same sex couples to those of opposite couples.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    I am ok with gay marriage, as it is between consenting adults.

    I am oppossed to gay adoption, as this is against the natural order of things and the child has no choice. This is not to say that gays would make bad parents, or that straights make good ones. It is about the normal development of the child.

    If gay couples think they have a “right” to have children, then let try and make a child the same way every one else does. You can’t get more equall than that !

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. AG (1,784 comments) says:

    Cato,

    You went from saying;

    a gay couple will always be somewhat deficient to a straight couple in that area when it comes to child-rearing. There is enough research to show that it is, in fact, a huge factor in whether a child grows up well-socialised and adjusted”

    to saying;

    If we come down to a battle of the experts then I suggest that, unless both parties are skilled in statistical modelling, the resulting debate is going to produce more heat than light. In such situations laypersons have to fall back on common sense and reasoning.

    In other words, the apparently firm empirical predicate for your entire argument turns out, under pressure, to be a mere assertion based on a single highly study of highly questionable methodology and “common sense” … that most abused of all terms, invariably deployed when someone has nothing better to say. So, yes. You surrendered.

    Couple of other things. It doesn’t help your argument that you can’t refer to the sole study you quote by its proper name. It’s the NFSS, not NFFS. It helps to be precise. And, when you ask:

    Honest question: if the study had found that there was ‘no difference’ or a ‘comparitive advantage’ for children raised by gay couples do you think that it would have been the subject of the same vicious criticism in the entertainment industry?

    I answer, “does the fact that Regnerus’ study was funded by a conservative, anti-gay marriage organisation who wanted results to help sway future Supreme Court decisions make it surprising that it reached the conclusions that it did (even if Regenerus himself admits the conclusions aren’t actually what a lot of people – including you – say they are)?”
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/10/supreme-court-gay-marriage_n_2850302.html

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    AG wants “evidence”

    Here it is: *Evolution

    * God works too, for all you theists out there.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. AG (1,784 comments) says:

    “The role of raising children is entrusted in principle to married heterosexual couples because after much experimentation—several thousand years, more or less—we have found nothing else that works as well.

    Jared Diamond would beg to differ: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2013/jan/06/jared-diamond-tribal-life-anthropology

    So, there we go. One person says one thing. Another says another. Thank God we’ve got common sense to tell us what is right! Because, when has “common sense” ever put us wrong?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. AG (1,784 comments) says:

    Kea,

    AG wants “evidence” Here it is: *Evolution

    Right. We’re evolving to allow same sex couples to marry and to be recognised as parents. Thanks, Kea.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. Cato (1,094 comments) says:

    AG,

    If you want to get hung up on this point then fine.

    I believe that studies, such as Regnerus (which is corroborated by others) shows that the outcomes for those raised by gay couples are not as good as those for those raised by married couples. That is butressed by the fact that there are plenty of studies that show that the children of solo parents struggle compared to those of married couples. You might argue that by redefining marriage to include same sex couples this problem is avoided but that presupposes that a man will make just as good a mother as a woman and a woman will make just as good a father as a man. Fine – let he who alleges prove!

    And you responded by pointing out the flaws in the Regnerus study. Again, fine. But if you have a shred of intellectual honesty, you probably have to recognise that we can’t rely on any studies because they have worse controls and cruddier samples than Regnerus does. And the point is, if we get to that – then we really can just rely on common sense and reason. Again, that’s not good ground for you to rely on.

    Do. You. See. How. Those. Points. Aren’t. Inconsistent?

    Do you know what’s more of a sign of tacit surrender than that, in my opinion? Carping on about poor typing.

    If you can’t see this … well, I question either your intelligence or the background motive for your participation in this debate.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. Cato (1,094 comments) says:

    AG -

    Can you just confirm for me that you think it was sloppy of me to ‘conflate’ a child “not having a father or mother” with “a child having two fathers or two mothers.”

    I responded that this so-called conflation was based on my recollection that the Adoption Act 1955 which does not provide for open adoption and that, for all legal purposes, an adoption order severs the ties between the natural parent and the child. I invited you to correct me if that was wrong. I am still waiting.

    It’s not that I’ve got anything against superciliousness, it’s just tiring when somebody doesn’t have the good grace to back up their haughty attitude.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. Cato (1,094 comments) says:

    AG – can you please demonstrate some intellectual consistency by clarifying this remark:

    “does the fact that Regnerus’ study was funded by a conservative, anti-gay marriage organisation…”

    1. Does it also follow that every study conducted by somebody who was in favour of gay marriage as a policy (and which found positive outcomes for children raised by gay couples) is invalid?

    2. Does it follow that criticism of Regnerus is invalid if it comes from somebody who is in favour of gay marriage as a policy?

    3. Can you honestly say that you, and the entertainment industry, have subjected Regnerus to same withering criticism and reverse special pleading if he had found positive outcomes for children raised by gay couples?

    4. Can you honestly look in the mirror say that you wouldn’t instead be lauding the scope and breadth of the study?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. The Scorned (719 comments) says:

    Please explain where a Child gets a “right” to have both a Mother and a Father…? Nature nor “God” recognises nor fulfils such a right equally or consistently. The fact is if you get such you are fortunate…but you are just as fortunate to have 2 people of any sex to care and love you enough to raise you.

    The religious righties here are making the same mistake as the leftys do re welfare and equality. There are no such things as “rights” to things what others must act to provide you with. Positive ‘rights” fallacy…

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. RRM (9,478 comments) says:

    Haughty attitude?

    I know in my heart that no gays are ever going to be good enough parents for a child. It’s a waste of time even allowing them to apply and be considered on their own merits.

    ^^^ That’s a haughty attitude.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. Mark (1,368 comments) says:

    AG (1,535) Says:
    March 25th, 2013 at 2:08 pm
    Mark,

    I accept everything you say is true. But I don’t see what follows from it, or what you think follows from it.

    Changes to the rules around the adoption of children should properly be debated on their own merits and not simply accepted as a consequential change to the marriage act. The marriage act is an issue about the rights of adults, the adoption act is about the rights of children. There seems to be an assumption here that what is good for gay couples is also good for children. That is a very long bow to draw. Adopted kids face enough challenges but there seems to be this expectation that either they need to toughen up or playgrounds will suddenly become microcosms of adult liberal tolerance.

    I have no issue with gay marriage but the adoption issue has not been well thought through.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. gump (1,491 comments) says:

    @Cato

    I find your comparisons between solo mothers and gay couples to be unhelpful.

    Given that most solo mums experience relatively low wages, longer working hours, and increased social marginalisation.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. Cato (1,094 comments) says:

    “I know in my heart that no gays are ever going to be good enough parents for a child. It’s a waste of time even allowing them to apply and be considered on their own merits.”

    Just searching for that text somewhere, anywhere. Nope. Can’t find it.

    I know it’s that much easier to argue with the opponent you want to, RRM, rather than the opponent you have.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. Cato (1,094 comments) says:

    @Gump – well, at least that’s an argument.

    Per James Q. Wilson’s survey of the literature outlined above:

    “…the best studies, such as those by Sara McLanahan and Gary Sandefur, show that low income can explain, at most, about half of the differences between single-parent and two-parent families. The rest of the difference is explained by a mother living without a husband.”

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    Homosexual couples want the same rights afforded to hetrosexual couples. I agree and support them in their struggle.

    If they want kids they can make them, by fucking, just like hetorsexual couples do.

    I am very liberal on gay issues, but homosexual adoption is a sick attempt at social engineering. This sort of thing is enough to turn even me against gay activists. Though I wonder how many gays really want to be married with children, or if it is the same feminist socialist agitators who are the usual suspects.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. nasska (10,696 comments) says:

    Earlier there was a bit of confusion between ‘Andrei’ & ‘RRM’ as to whether uteri were limited to those with a full compliment of X chromosomes.

    But what miracles of genetic manipulation await us?

    Ref: https://www.dropbox.com/s/vk5jwa7kmj1jhpx/Pain.jpg

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    The Scorned (481) Says:
    March 25th, 2013 at 5:08 pm
    Please explain where a Child gets a “right” to have both a Mother and a Father

    No need to explain that. It is biological fact. If it were not a biological fact, we would not be having this debate.

    How about you “explain” how two men can make a child ?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. Rodders (1,790 comments) says:

    nasska – …and I thought that passing a kidney stone was painful :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. Cato (1,094 comments) says:

    Lastly, I’m not actually willing to write off the Acta Pædiatrica article I cited earlier either. What it shows is that fatherhood makes a powerful impact on the life of children. Something that is absence if there is legally and effectively no father of the child. To presuppose that this somehow wouldn’t impact the children of say, two mothers, strains credulity to say the least.

    As to the request: “Please explain where a Child gets a “right” to have both a Mother and a Father…” Well, children may not have ‘rights’ in the sense that they can rock up to the court and have that right vindicated. They do, however, have the right to have their well-being considered first and foremost. That includes the right to being placed in the most optimal and proven structure for the raising of rearing of healthy children – marriage.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. SPC (5,397 comments) says:

    Kea, there is no room for “weasel room” here – all married couples have the right to adopt as a couple.

    Thus gay couples once married will have the right to adopt. Thus support for same sex marriage results in the adoption right.

    This is why the opponents of same sex marriage seek to exploit the child adoption issue, so those opposed to same sex couples adopting children will oppose same sex marriages.

    It is why their claim that there was already legal equality under civil unions is of course untrue.

    The irony is of course there are so few unrelated child adoptions now, and the chance of a same sex couple adopting an unrelated child is thus very low.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    ChardonnayGuy (518) Says:
    March 25th, 2013 at 4:26 pm
    2 4 6 8, why are most of the toxic, severely dysfunctional parents that CYFS deals with straight?

    Could it be because two people of the same sex can not create a child ?

    Take a step back and look at what your actually saying instead of lashing out at straw men.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. Cato (1,094 comments) says:

    SPC – great, so gay couples now have equal rights of adoption as straight couples. But it’s not about adult happiness, it’s only about the welfare of the children. But it is good that there is now legal equality for gay couples to adopt.

    As for dismissing ‘stranger adoptions’ – they do happen and when they do involve a very real child. I’m afraid you’re also exhibiting the same logical error as Andrew Geddis by seemingly thinking that married gay couples will apply to adopt children in the same proportion as married straight couples.

    That would only be true if you also believe that the same proportion of gay couples are infertile as straight couples. The reality is that while only a few straight couples are infertile, all gay couples are.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. SPC (5,397 comments) says:

    On the issue of same sex parents.

    1. many are divorced women who then partner to another woman (these numbers are probably increasing because of the higher rate of divorce)
    2. some are divorced men who married (these numbers are declining as homosexual men have a more acceptance in society than in the past so don’t marry in the first place).
    3. lesbian women don’t find it hard to have children – given all women have access to sperm banks.
    4. homosexual men who desire children can approach lesbians who want involved fathers or otherwise use surrogates.

    Those who want children and can support/provide for them make better parents than those who resort to this for economic reasons (unemployed poorly educated women) or those who think it is what is expected of them.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. Cato (1,094 comments) says:

    Welcome to the bus stop Kea.

    You might have thought it ended with not interferring in the affairs of consenting adults, but the journey has a while to go yet.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. Cato (1,094 comments) says:

    Miller-Jenkins v. Miller-Jenkins (2006) 912 A.2d 951.

    Also, SPC can you please compare and contrast your 1. and 2. above and tell me why your reasoning for each doesn’t also apply to the other?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    SPC (2,573) Says:
    March 25th, 2013 at 5:35 pm
    Kea, there is no room for “weasel room” here – all married couples have the right to adopt as a couple.

    Thus gay couples once married will have the right to adopt. Thus support for same sex marriage results in the adoption right.

    This is why the opponents of same sex marriage seek to exploit the child adoption issue, so those opposed to same sex couples adopting children will oppose same sex marriages.

    Based on your argument,(that adoption rights follow marriage), are the opponents not quite right in their concerns ?

    I have posted here many times in defense of gay marriage. I have now withdrawn that support as it appears the opponents were right all along. It is simply not right to give a child to a couple of poofters to raise. It offends common sense and nature.

    Quoting bullshit studies from social engineering academic liberals will do nothing to change the facts of biology and evolution.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. SPC (5,397 comments) says:

    Cato, And individual people, same sex or not, can adopt now – this makes their partner a guardian. There is no increased risk to children from same sex couples being able to marry and adopt as a couple.

    PS Nearly all the children raised by same sex couples now are related to one of them. This will not change if they can marry.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    Cato (551) Says:
    March 25th, 2013 at 5:44 pm
    Welcome to the bus stop Kea.

    You might have thought it ended with not interferring in the affairs of consenting adults, but the journey has a while to go yet.

    I was wrong :(

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    Nearly all the children raised by same sex couples now are related to one of them.

    SPC, nice red herring. I think this debate contemplates raving homos raising someone else’s baby. Try and keep up.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. Cato (1,094 comments) says:

    Kea – well, I’ll say this in your defence, at least you were motivated by admirably libertarian principles. There is nothing to be ashamed of in having good faith.

    As for SPC’s commment that “Nearly all the children raised by same sex couples now are related to one of them. This will not change if they can marry.”

    There are about 50 ‘stranger’ adoptions every year. You can call that minimal if you want, but it’s 50 real children who may be placed in a situation in which they will miss out on having a dad (or a mum).

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    A little girls explains it all :

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. SPC (5,397 comments) says:

    Kea, there will no change in adoption in practice – only couple adoption rather than single and partner as guardian.

    Your change in position is based on posturing against same sex parents adopting unrelated children – the numbers of which may be one per year now and one per year in the future. No change in adoption rate from the status quo.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. Cato (1,094 comments) says:

    How is it posturing? Just saying so doesn’t make it so.

    Address the issue instead of offering a smoke screen. Do you favour the adoption of orphans and abandoned children by gay couples when there is no shortage of natural couples?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  117. SPC (5,397 comments) says:

    Cato, 50 unrelated child adoptions a year and about one going to single same sex people (their partner being a guardian).

    And the number of same sex people seeking to adopt does not increase when they seek to adopt as a couple, rather than as individuals as they do now.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  118. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    Your change in position is based on posturing against same sex parents adopting unrelated children

    Yes. Dam right it is !

    I am glad I made that clear. Please have a look at the brief presentation above and get back to me.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  119. SPC (5,397 comments) says:

    Cato, you say there is no shortage of “natural couples” to adopt unrelated children now – of course not that is why 49 of 50 will not go to same sex people, not now as individuals and not in the future as couples.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  120. SPC (5,397 comments) says:

    Kea, so because 1 in 50 adoptions of unrelated children goes to an individual homosexual now and in the future this 1 in 50 adoptions would be to a homosexual couple (since once married they could adopt as a couple) you oppose same sex marriage – all because of the 1 child concerned should not have a parent who is married?

    Do I have this clear?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  121. Cato (1,094 comments) says:

    SPC, I will reserve judgment. Let time tell.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  122. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    SPC, natural parents do not need to “adopt” their own child. They make them, by fucking.

    Homos can have fun trying to do the same. I did not make those rules. Millions of years of human evolution did.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  123. SPC (5,397 comments) says:

    Cato, you asked a question regarding my list of same sex parents.

    As to 1. and 2. I think the divergence is the way women are raised up in society to aspire to be a wife and mother. Bi-sexual women will buy into it and they will do this. However should their marriage fail they often pair with another woman. See Seven Sharp for exhibit A. One of the women on Sex in the City also had a long marriage, but now lives with another woman.

    It may also be part of the reaction of some heterosexual women in failing to have a successful marriage to be wary of another man in their life, and in some ways some women are well aware that their children are safer if their new partner is another woman.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  124. SPC (5,397 comments) says:

    Kea, women can use sperm banks to have children. Men can find lesbians who want a father tin their child’s life or otherwise use surrogates. Many heterosexual couples have children the same way and or use fertility treatments.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  125. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    you oppose same sex marriage – all because of the 1 child concerned should not have a parent who is married?

    Do I have this clear?

    SPC, no you do not have it clear.

    I am opposed to gay couples adopting unrelated kids. Period.

    If the child is the natural born child of one of the “couple” then it is a different situation. However, people do not need to -adopt- their own offspring.

    If the other gay partner wants to adopt the child (of the other partner) then I oppose it.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  126. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    SPC (2,581) Says:
    March 25th, 2013 at 6:21 pm
    Kea, women can use sperm banks to have children. Men can find lesbians who want a father tin their child’s life or otherwise use surrogates. Many heterosexual couples have children the same way and or use fertility treatments.

    Yep. And homos can use fertility treatments [in the name of equality] too, if they think it will help.

    It may also be part of the reaction of some heterosexual women in failing to have a successful marriage to be wary of another man in their life

    Correct. Many female same sex couples do not love women, they hate men. Big difference. Those dysfunctional attitudes may be reflected in the child. Thanks for providing another argument against it.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  127. SPC (5,397 comments) says:

    Kea, you are not at your best on this

    You claim you support adult choice and then you think the choice a woman makes when she is wary of another man in her life is grounds to reject her ability to chose to marry another women. Really? You don’t really stand very strong on the conviction of adult choice do you.

    And what is dysfunctional of being wary to making a second marriage that would led to more children? Do you think a woman on the DPB wants to double the risk and having twice the number of kids to raise on the DPB next time?

    We already know that women who go from man to man and have children by different fathers are placing their children at risk.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  128. Reid (15,981 comments) says:

    300,000 protest gay-marriage in Paris for this very reason of adoption. And there’s a photo of the entire crowd along the Champs Elysees in case people want to deny the numbers.

    What is very bad about it in this country is that the adoption issue has been barely discussed at all by the proponents of the bill, until now, when it’s all over bar the shouting. Was that a deliberate decision? Who knows, no-one has proof but since it is the most contentious aspect of the entire bill, you’d have to conclude it very likely. It’s from the same bag of underhand techniques they used on the anti-smacking bill, when they called smacking for correction assault, which they keep doing, as in that column DPF cited yesterday. Question for those who didn’t support the anti-smacking bill but do support this: How come the “assault” language was propaganda but this silence isn’t?

    And if you agree there is no distinction between the two, you’re logically forced to admit this bill isn’t about “human wights” but merely yet another social engineering ploy, just like the anti-smacking bill was, and is. Which makes those who didn’t support either bill very wise indeed and those who supported one or both, useful idiots. Doesn’t it.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  129. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    SPC, I have already explained my position. I will try typing slower this time ;)

    If the women has her own child, then decides all men are pigs & runs off to play dyke, then I have no problem as it is her choice and her kid. But that is NOT an adoption issue.

    We already know that women who go from man to man and have children by different fathers are placing their children at risk.

    Yes. But this is about gay adoption.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  130. SPC (5,397 comments) says:

    Kea, do you oppose individual homosexuals adopting unrelated children, or just same sex married couples?

    The only thing that same sex marriage changes is the latter as well as the former can.

    The numbers would still be the same, about 1 of the 50 unrelated children available for adoption each year going to a homosexual parent/parents.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  131. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    Kea, do you oppose individual homosexuals adopting unrelated children,

    YES

    SPC, you are wrong, but not stupid. You can clearly see my point and are trying to trip me up with word games. You crafty little commie you.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  132. SPC (5,397 comments) says:

    Reid, do you not think it might be because there is no right for unmarried homosexual individuals in France to adopt at the moment, whereas this has been the case here for some years?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  133. SPC (5,397 comments) says:

    Kea, if your problem is with the ability of same sex individuals to adopt, then seek to change adoption law.

    Given many homosexuals will not marry even if they can, so that would reduce the number of homosexuals who could adopt to only those who were married.

    Your problem would be the discrimination angle. Equal right to adopt for individuals and for married couples. But there is an exemption for the adoption of girls – single men cannot adopt girl children.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  134. Judith (7,695 comments) says:

    Kea (2,758) Says:
    March 25th, 2013 at 6:31 pm
    SPC (2,581) Says:
    March 25th, 2013 at 6:21 pm

    Correct. Many female same sex couples do not love women, they hate men. Big difference. Those dysfunctional attitudes may be reflected in the child. Thanks for providing another argument against it.

    ———————————-

    What a load of unadultered garbage you talk. Most Lesbians do not ‘hate men’ any more than gay men ‘hate women’. You clearly have very little understanding on homosexuality. Not wanting to have sex with someone, doesn’t mean you ‘hate’ them.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  135. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    But there is an exemption for the adoption of girls – single men cannot adopt girl children.

    Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

    Lets “go there” SPC.

    Why can guys not adopt little girls and but it is ok for a couple of raving queers to adopt a nice young boy ?

    And yes, I think that adoption law should change, to reflect my views, of course.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  136. Judith (7,695 comments) says:

    With adoption today, in most cases, the birth parent/s get to decide where their baby will be placed. Therefore, they get to choose whether gay couples are going to adopt.

    As the parent’s they should be allowed to make that decision – it is their child.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  137. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    What a load of unadultered garbage you talk. Most Lesbians do not ‘hate men’ any more than gay men ‘hate women’. You clearly have very little understanding on homosexuality.

    Judith. Firstly you should be in the kitchen cleaning up the dinner dishes, not interrupting the men folk on KB.

    Many women who are in same sex relationships have “issues” with men. A great number of them in fact. I am well aware that not all are like that. I have had this conversation with lesbian women and found considerable common ground on the topic.

    Gay men do not seem to have the same problem and tend to get on well with women.

    Now run along …

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  138. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    As the parent’s they should be allowed to make that decision – it is their child.

    Ok lets play with that theme for a moment.

    Why not sell the child to the highest bidder ? ” As the parent’s they should be allowed to make that decision – it is their child”

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  139. SPC (5,397 comments) says:

    Kea, the reason is that most child abuse is by men against unrelated females.

    You would need evidence that homosexual men were abusing male children or lesbian women were abusing girl children, as both individuals and as couples, to back up any campaign to block adoption of unrelated children.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  140. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    SPC, oh dear you are being very sexist and using stereotypes. I am “offended” lol

    I wont be part of any “campaign”. If millions of years of evolution and biological fact do not get the message across, then what hope have I got !

    Also I am generally liberal on social issues and battling homos would possibly incite those with more sinister motives to intemperance. A few gays adopting kids will not be the end of civilisation, but I do oppose it for reasons already traversed.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  141. AG (1,784 comments) says:

    @Cato:

    “I believe that studies, such as Regnerus (which is corroborated by others) shows that the outcomes for those raised by gay couples are not as good as those for those raised by married couples.”

    Corroborated by which others? Or does common sense just tell you they were?

    That is butressed by the fact that there are plenty of studies that show that the children of solo parents struggle compared to those of married couples. You might argue that by redefining marriage to include same sex couples this problem is avoided but that presupposes that a man will make just as good a mother as a woman and a woman will make just as good a father as a man.

    No. I’d argue that someone who claims that a study of how children fare in single parent families has anything at all to say about a the outcomes of children in stable same-sex families is an idiot.

    Fine – let he who alleges prove!

    And I did. I pointed to a study of UK adoptive families that shows no negative outcomes for children placed into same sex family arrangements. Which is, after all, the exact point at issue. But, of course, you reject this on the basis of your Regnerus study (which sort-of looked at a completely different issue in a very dubious fashion – how do children fare in any sort of family arrangement where parents once had some sort of same-sex encounter in their past.

    And you responded by pointing out the flaws in the Regnerus study. Again, fine.

    Excellent. You acknowledge the study to be flawed. (What happened to all those corroborating studies, btw?)

    But if you have a shred of intellectual honesty, you probably have to recognise that we can’t rely on any studies because they have worse controls and cruddier samples than Regnerus does. And the point is, if we get to that – then we really can just rely on common sense and reason. Again, that’s not good ground for you to rely on.

    But it is YOU who has to prove a point! You are the one who wants to treat same sex couples differently than straight ones! So you can’t “win” the argument by saying “there is no proof one way or the other on this, so let’s treat same sex couples like second class citizens because common sense says it’s a good idea.” That is … pure bigotry.

    Or, let’s thought experiment it differently. Maybe in the future, children raised in Christian households will become the subject of incessant taunting throughout their school years (we can’t know the truth of this, but “common sense” and increasing secularisation tell us it is possible). This may have a very negative impact on their development. So, to avoid this possibility, we should prevent Christian couples from being able to adopt. Just in case. After all, it’s just common sense.

    So … I put it to you again. What, aside from your “common sense”, indicates that same sex couples should not be able to jointly adopt?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  142. AG (1,784 comments) says:

    @Cato,

    Can you just confirm for me that you think it was sloppy of me to ‘conflate’ a child “not having a father or mother” with “a child having two fathers or two mothers.”

    Yes. Completely sloppy. The “closed nature” of adoption doesn’t change things one little bit.

    Go read the post DPF actually discusses. You might learn something.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  143. nasska (10,696 comments) says:

    There’s a gaping divide between the issues of Gay Marriage & Same Sex Marriage Adoption.

    The former deals with the rights of two adult citizens & should be no concern of the rest of society.

    The latter is dressed up as a gay rights issue but in reality is an issue of childrens’ rights to stability, love & safety. As such the status quo should prevail until far more study is done into the possible effect on the kids.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  144. AG (1,784 comments) says:

    “Address the issue instead of offering a smoke screen. Do you favour the adoption of orphans and abandoned children by gay couples when there is no shortage of natural couples?”

    My God … you really have no idea how this works, do you? Why don’t you take a break from typing, and do some learning? Here’s a good place to start: http://www.cyf.govt.nz/adoption/adopting-a-child/adoptions-within-nz.html

    Here’s a hint. Neither orphans nor abandoned children get adopted out to strangers in New Zealand. Preferably, they are placed with other members of the family (immediate or extended). If this is not possible, they are placed in long term care. And (wait for it!!!!) that long term care may be provided by … drumroll please … a same sex couple.

    So if this is the extent of your concern, Cato – you are too late. The evil future is now.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  145. AG (1,784 comments) says:

    @nasska,

    So … until we have more study into the effect on kids of something we don’t allow, we shouldn’t allow it? That’s a damn fine use of your think bone.

    Breaking news. Kids are raised by gay and lesbian parents. Today. All the time. This law change will regularise the legal status of those relationships. That is it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  146. SPC (5,397 comments) says:

    nasska, the same sex couple can still adopt unrelated children as individuals under the status quo. Their partner becomes guardian.

    Most of the children raised by same sex couples are children of one or the other.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  147. SPC (5,397 comments) says:

    AG, there are unrelated children adopted, but yes same sex couples can be amongst those providing foster care. Foster care is often because there is the prospect of family repatriation, thus no need to adopt out.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  148. AG (1,784 comments) says:

    Foster care is often because there is the prospect of family repatriation, thus no need to adopt out.

    And to avoid the crude legal effect that adoption has, in terms of severing all family ties between the child and her or his biological relatives. The present preference is for “A Home for Life” (http://www.cyf.govt.nz/info-for-caregivers/home-for-life/home-for-life.html), unless a birth mum really, really wants to pursue the adoption route … in which case, she effectively selects the new parents.

    Also note – this “Home for Life” arrangement is sexuality blind. Same sex couples can be a part of it. Sorry, folks … it’s already happening.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  149. nasska (10,696 comments) says:

    AG & SPC

    I appreciate that most (someone suggested 49 out of 50) adoptions will be as you describe where a gay person adopts his/her partner’s children. The point here is that one of those partners will be the natural parent who is odds on to be protective of their own flesh & blood.

    It is the other 2% that worry me. If a gay couple are fostering a non related kid, he/she’s welfare & circumstances will be closely monitored for the duration…..in the case of adoption long term monitoring would not be available & probably unacceptable anyway.

    I haven’t got a totally closed mind on the issue…..it’s just that I’d like to see some hard data & recognised studies on outcomes before I’m convinced that it’s a good thing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  150. AG (1,784 comments) says:

    I haven’t got a totally closed mind on the issue…..it’s just that I’d like to see some hard data & recognised studies on outcomes before I’m convinced that it’s a good thing.

    Here you go: http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/ive-got-two-dads-and-they-adopted-me

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  151. SPC (5,397 comments) says:

    nasska, it’s 1 in 50 of the unrelated children adopted out each year (it is only about 50 children adopted out to unrelated parents each year) that goes to a same sex person. These are the children that would be adopted together by a same sex couple if they were married.

    So obviously most children raised up by same sex parents are their own or their partners.

    The status of the non parental partner ( step parent) and the child is the same as for other couples. There is a known increase in risk of abuse of children from males who become step parents (more so new de facto partners).

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  152. Reid (15,981 comments) says:

    Kea, the reason is that most child abuse is by men against unrelated females.

    You would need evidence that homosexual men were abusing male children or lesbian women were abusing girl children, as both individuals and as couples, to back up any campaign to block adoption of unrelated children.

    Surely it’s not about potential for abuse, surely that’s weeded out by all sorts of processes in the adoption process. The elephant that’s in the room is the unsuitability of gay couples on the grounds they don’t provide a balanced upbringing. Both girls and boys need both parents. It’s not a “nice to have” it’s a psychological bottom line.

    But no-one’s allowed to mention that because that would be discwiminatowy. Which shows how twisted the whole process has become, when the wights of a gay couple not to feel discwiminated against overrule the right of an innocent not to be placed into an unsuitable home on the grounds the home is incapable of providing properly for their needs because of the very basis of their relationship. It’s a psychological fact, but we’re not allowed to mention it, that would be weally awful. But it’s true.

    And this applies to single people and to gay couples just as it does also to criminals, abusers, and unstable emotional wrecks, none of whom are fit to be considered by the state to be eligible to adopt children. For the above reason. It’s not a suitable environment for a growing mind. Not because they’re gay, but because it’s imbalanced.

    Seriously, that’s the issue, and like I said, we wouldn’t consider alcoholics as eligible adopting parents, you don’t even need to explain why that is, and gay parents are as obvious as an alcoholic and it has nothing to do with gay promiscuity, or anything else. I wouldn’t care if gay parents earned $500k, had a lifelong stable relationship and were wonderfully kind. None of that has anything to do with it. It’s the fact that they cannot, ever, provide what a child needs more than anything. Both a mother, and a father.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  153. AG (1,784 comments) says:

    oth girls and boys need both parents. It’s not a “nice to have” it’s a psychological bottom line. But no-one’s allowed to mention that because that would be discwiminatowy.

    Yes. It is discriminatory. Because, despite your assertion that it is “a psychological bottom line”, you cannot bring any evidence to show this to be true. And, again, the UK evidence is quite the opposite. So repeatedly shouting “this is the way it is” does not make it any more true.

    Seriously, that’s the issue, and like I said, we wouldn’t consider alcoholics as eligible adopting parents, you don’t even need to explain why that is, and gay parents are as obvious as an alcoholic and it has nothing to do with gay promiscuity, or anything else.

    Because alcoholics are at higher risk of giving children an unsafe environment in which to develop. How is this so like same sex couples adopting children that you don’t even need to discuss it? Also, as has been pointed out, the State already places children with same sex couples on a long-term care basis. So … you’re too late. Sorry.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  154. Reid (15,981 comments) says:

    you cannot bring any evidence to show this to be true

    You mean apart from life? How would you be if you had two dads or two mums? If you seriously think you wouldn’t be one fucked up unit if you had been raised with two dads or two mums, you don’t know much about life.

    And there are studies, just google them. Possibly it’s because you don’t want to find them, that you haven’t come across them.

    How is this so like same sex couples adopting children that you don’t even need to discuss it?

    See above and read what I said again. Like I said, I don’t care if they are the most stable, loyal, loving, caring and well-resourced providers in the whole wide world. If they’re gay, they’re not suitable, just like if they’re alcoholics, they’re not suitable. The reasons they’re not suitable are different, but they’re nevertheless not suitable, and no amount of PC psychobabble bullshit will ever change that FACT.

    Also, as has been pointed out, the State already places children with same sex couples on a long-term care basis. So … you’re too late. Sorry.

    So your argument is because its already done this makes it OK? What if the reasons it is being done already are flawed? Does that still make it OK?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  155. SGA (817 comments) says:

    @Reid “It’s the fact that they cannot, ever, provide what a child needs more than anything. Both a mother, and a father.”

    “More than anything” – bullshit. As a single parent, I think that I provide my children with a standard of love and care far beyond what some kids in this country with “both a mother and a father” are getting. You must know that – just having a “both a mother and a father” is no guarantee of anything.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  156. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    How would you be if you had two dads or two mums?

    Reid, He would not be anything. He would not exist.

    That is not a social, moral, political, ethical, religious or subjective view. It is a simple biological fact.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  157. SPC (5,397 comments) says:

    Wied, unbalanced … does this unbalanced nurturing environment (is this the language partner term of unbalanced partnership?) include sole parent birth and child rearing, post divorce child rearing, absent father child rearing?

    Arguing that the relationship type of the parent should disqualify someone from adoption when single people can adopt is not a credible position – not unless you want to ban single people raising children, receiving fertility treatment or using sperm banks. And same sex individuals can do this too.

    Admit it, you are reaching for a reason as to why people should oppose same sex marriage.

    The Catholic Church are at least consistent, they oppose same sex activity, they oppose sole parenthood (would prefer the children adopted out) and they oppose divorce. Thus they can oppose civil unions, same sex marriage, fertility treatment (including couples) for and adoption by singles and same sex couples.

    A bit progressive yourself, you make up your own half way house position and call it some neo conservatism.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  158. Reid (15,981 comments) says:

    As a single parent, I think that I provide my children with a standard of love and care far beyond what some kids in this country with “both a mother and a father” are getting.

    SGA and SPC, get it through your skulls, this has nothing repeat nothing to do with the standard of love and care that is provided and it also has nothing to do with the fact lots of kids don’t have both parents.

    It has to do exclusively with the state setting rules for kids in their charge, on behalf of those kids, and what the state should be doing in respect of those kids, when it acts on their behalf. In other words, everything is secondary to the needs of that kid. Everything. In this situation the state should be totally blind to any politically correct guidelines it has, it should be oblivious to everything but what is best for the kid. Period. Nothing else matters.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  159. SGA (817 comments) says:

    @Ried

    Get it through your skull that is not what you have said – quote ““It’s the fact that they cannot, ever, provide what a child needs more than anything. Both a mother, and a father.” Your words – “more than anything” – I call bullshit.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  160. SPC (5,397 comments) says:

    Reid, having rules that are child centred and consistent for adoption – that excluded same sex individuals or couples because of a “lack of balance in the parenting arrangement” would also exclude singles seeking to adopt and also all singles seeking sperm donation and fertility treatment. Then of course support for singles who bore children.

    Anything else would be half way house conservative PC, simply discriminating on the grounds of sexuality.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  161. Reid (15,981 comments) says:

    Your words – “more than anything” – I call bullshit.

    Feel free SGA. But I think that’s more to do with the fact you’re a father doing the best you can rather than whether or not what I say is false.

    I’m not criticising solo parents, mothers or fathers. Please don’t read into what I said more than what I said.

    would also exclude singles seeking to adopt and also all singles seeking sperm donation and fertility treatment.

    That’s right. If the latter used state support, just as if a gay couple used state support, to get it.

    Then of course support for singles who bore children.

    Why would it do that?

    Like SGA, you’re reading more into what I said, than what I said.

    I’ll say it again.

    What I said is pertains to state rules for adoption. It doesn’t pertain to solo parents, it doesn’t pertain to welfare, it doesn’t pertain to in-vitro fertilisation unless the state is providing that service.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  162. SGA (817 comments) says:

    @Reid “Feel free SGA. But I think that’s more to do with the fact you’re a father doing the best you can rather than whether or not what I say is false.”

    So you stand by what you say – fair enough. I think you are showing a lot of ignorance about what some “normal” (by your definition) families are like, and what is most important for children, but I doubt that will bother you.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  163. SPC (5,397 comments) says:

    Reid, so you have no problem with tens of thousands children being raised by “unbalanced parenting”, only adoption of unrelated children by a homosexual parent – about one child per year.

    Do you have a problem with single people adopting currently, or only if they are homosexual/lesbian?

    PS the state determines the rules for welfare, sperm donation and fertility treatment, just as for adoption.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  164. Andrei (2,506 comments) says:

    SPC when single people adopt that is because they are the closest blood relative of the child that is able to take on the responsibility of raising him or her because when bad things happen to a child and their parents are lost the best option is for their kin to tale the parents place.

    This is not about giving the childless a desired child but about providing the best for the child we can in the circumstances

    You people have got the whole concept of adoption ass about face

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  165. Dennis Horne (2,059 comments) says:

    Poor argument sure allows leniency
    For redefining nature, an expediency
    Homosexuals don’t want marriage
    They see that only as the carriage
    For the normalisation of deviancy.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  166. SPC (5,397 comments) says:

    Andrei, any stats to back that up?

    Adoption comes in two categories of a related child or an unrelated child – there are about 50 unrelated child adoptions a year.

    The latter does include single people seeking to adopt.

    I think those seeking to exploit the adoption issue to block same sex marriage have got their spiritual milk tits in a twist.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  167. Reid (15,981 comments) says:

    I think you are showing a lot of ignorance about what some “normal” (by your definition) families are like

    SGA I’m a product of a very loving and wonderful solo parent. You’ll notice I haven’t used the word “normal” anywhere. Once again you seem to have trouble reading what I actually said, rather than what you think someone who said what I wrote would have to think if they wrote that.

    Reid, so you have no problem with tens of thousands children being raised by “unbalanced parenting”, only adoption of unrelated children by a homosexual parent – about one child per year.

    SPC I wish it didn’t happen. It does. There we are. It’s not ideal. What does that have to do with gay adoption?

    Do you have a problem with single people adopting currently, or only if they are homosexual/lesbian?

    When the state is acting on behalf of a child who isn’t capable or equipped to make their own judgement I’d rather the entire list of available mums and dads was run through before going to the B list and then the C list. I think most people with an ounce of understanding of the human condition would see why a mum and dad is preferable to a single person or a gay couple.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  168. SGA (817 comments) says:

    @Reid
    I do read what you write – “It’s the fact that they cannot, ever, provide what a child needs more than anything. Both a mother, and a father.” That is what you wrote, and sorry, I disagree with it. There are more important things than just having a “both a mother and a father” – it is not “more important than anything”. You are welcome to disagree, but don’t insult us both by pretending you never said it.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  169. SPC (5,397 comments) says:

    Reid, the number of unrelated to child adoptions is about 50 per year. About 1 goes to a same sex parent now probably someone with a partner but under the current rules they adopt alone. Same sex marriage allows same sex couples to adopt together. But one would presume it would not impact on the 1 in 50 per year adoption outcomes that occur now. The 1 in 50 rate would itself be in a field of strong demand for available children (why many go overseas), thus would exclude candidates not seen as fit parents.

    It’s not a big issue in so far as child safety is concerned, there are others that have much more importance.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  170. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    Dennis Horne (806) Says:
    March 25th, 2013 at 10:53 pm
    Poor argument sure allows leniency
    For redefining nature, an expediency
    Homosexuals don’t want marriage
    They see that only as the carriage
    For the normalisation of deviancy.

    =============================

    Very good, that is a great poem.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  171. Dennis Horne (2,059 comments) says:

    @SGA. You’re taking it personally. Children lose natural parents for all sorts of reasons, at various ages, and still become independent and useful members of society. (Others with both parents are hopeless.) That in itself is no argument for the state to deliberately give children to single parents, although there may be other good reasons.

    Reid can be arrogant and obnoxious. We are all deeply flawed.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  172. Harriet (4,534 comments) says:

    WHAT THE HELL IS NZ SOCIETY COMING TO?

    It doesn’t matter if you are a gay man or a straight women – you don’t ever, ever – DESIGN A SITUATION where a child SUFFERS THE LOSS of their mother or father!

    All of Jules Mukus’s children HAVE THE LEGAL RIGHT to visit him in PRISON!

    Yet we still have IDIOTS at Kiwiblog who think it is quite ok that some kids should forgo that NATURAL right -all through their entire childhood- and just to keep some gays happy – and some of the wilfully single women too!

    BTW. I’m back! :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  173. AG (1,784 comments) says:

    @Reid,

    It has to do exclusively with the state setting rules for kids in their charge, on behalf of those kids, and what the state should be doing in respect of those kids, when it acts on their behalf. In other words, everything is secondary to the needs of that kid. Everything.

    So if there were any evidence whatsoever that kids being placed with same sex couples (as, you’ll note, already happens in NZ with the “Home for Life” programme) you’d have a point. But you can’t point to any. So your entire argument comes down to “I think mum and dad must be best because it just feels right … like the sun must go round the earth because I don’t feel like I’m moving”. This is not a basis for public policy. It’s, at most, a basis for a religion.

    More importantly, stranger adoption only really happens with the consent of the birth mum (and dad, if he’s in the picture). So what you are saying is that there ought to be some situation where a birth mum thinks that of all the available adoptive couples, some married same sex couple is the best one to become her child’s new parents – but the state says they can’t be. So they’ll have to grow up with a second-best set of parents (in the eyes of the birth mum), with that birth mum then in ongoing contact with them and the child (open adoptions are now the preferred path) and knowing they weren’t who she really wanted the child to be with.

    That is not a recipe for success.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  174. AG (1,784 comments) says:

    It doesn’t matter if you are a gay man or a straight women – you don’t ever, ever – DESIGN A SITUATION where a child SUFFERS THE LOSS of their mother or father!

    That is an argument against all adoption, not an argument against same-sex adoption.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  175. Chuck Bird (4,687 comments) says:

    A recent survey of New Zealand gay men undertaken in conjunction with the NZ AIDS Foundation revealed nearly two thirds of gay men are drug users, and the majority also cheat on their partners, frequently. The survey found that 35% of NZ gay men have sex with between 12 and a hundred different strangers every year, often in circumstances very similar to the gay nightclubs Eric Rofes wrote about.

    AG, I assume you are aware of this. The idea that homosexuals are the same as heterosexuals is bullshit. Let us say for the sake of argument that neither of the two men who adopt fall in to the above category. It is quite possible that one or both of these men if their “marriage” ended could end up in relationship with someone in the above category.

    Do you think that would be a good environment for an adolescent boy to be raised in? Do you think they would have an increased risk of being sexually abused than with a heterosexual couple?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  176. ChardonnayGuy (1,137 comments) says:

    Right, Chuck, and who are responsible for all the abortions each year? Not lesbians or gay men.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  177. Chuck Bird (4,687 comments) says:

    CG, what does abortion have to do with homosexual adoption?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  178. Dennis Horne (2,059 comments) says:

    I believe it is illegal to discriminate against homosexuals as adoptive parents in the UK and various agencies (Catholic) have closed down as a consequence.

    This activism is not about society being tolerant or reasonable. That’s wishful thinking. This is about homosexual acts being endorsed by society as the equivalence of heterosexual.

    The reality is the only difference between homosexuality and paedophilia is consent. Both show a failure to mature sexually and function normally. That does not mean homosexuals ought to be persecuted. Nor does it mean we have to pretend.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  179. Chuck Bird (4,687 comments) says:

    Shock poll over gay marriage bill
    By Isaac Davison
    Updated 10:19 AM Tuesday Mar 26, 2013

    Which of the following best fits your view about marriage law?

    12250–12300 votes
    It should remain only between a man and a woman. 55% –
    It should be changed to allow it between same sex couples. 40%
    I don’t know/I don’t care. 5%

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10873630

    Despite homosexual marriage and adoption being pushed by the leaders of the three largest political parties and most of the liberal media the public are waking up to the real facts not the so called facts that Louisa Walls refers to.

    This why the liberals are so opposed to direct democracy.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  180. SPC (5,397 comments) says:

    It’s not the first poll of this sort to show that result. Once parliament indicated its support for the legislation, those of the public for the legislation lost interest in them. Whereas for opponents this is all they had, that or funding sample polls with questions designed to get the most favourable result to their cause.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  181. gump (1,491 comments) says:

    @Chuck Bird

    The latest MoH survey results show that 49% of NZ adults aged 16-64 have tried recreational drugs (not including alcohol or tobacco) at least once in their lifetime.

    And you have the bare faced cheek to suggest that drug use is a gay problem?

    Seriously?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  182. gump (1,491 comments) says:

    @Dennis Horne

    I have the same belief about religion i.e. it shows a “failure to mature [intellectually] and function normally.”

    Thank you for giving me permission not to pretend otherwise.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  183. Chuck Bird (4,687 comments) says:

    @gump

    I fail to see the logic of drug use in relation to my last comment.

    Do homosexuals have a different sort of logic?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  184. Dennis Horne (2,059 comments) says:

    @gump. Agree absolutely. :) :) :)

    Thank you for the compliment but I can’t give you “permission not to pretend otherwise”, because the societies that matter on this Earth regard religiosity as not only normal but good. God bless America, etc. ;)

    By observation and with no data I conclude the penis and vagina evolved to fit together, just as the mouth evolved to receive food. So I won’t be sticking my roast dinner up my nose.

    You see, I am just a simple chap who doesn’t get bamboozled by data and statistics.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  185. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    Well that is it then. Not a single gay adoption supporter has said a word in response to my question. They are all suddenly struck mute and do not care about “equality”. Amazing.

    ” Why are straight men not allowed to adopt little girls, on the basis of their sexuality ?”

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  186. AG (1,784 comments) says:

    @Kea,

    ” Why are straight men not allowed to adopt little girls, on the basis of their sexuality ?”

    The law doesn’t say straight men can’t adopt little girls. It says any man can’t adopt a little girl. It applies to gay men as much as to straights.

    However, as to your actual question, the section is there because the Adoption Act was written and passed in 1955. It is hopelessly out of date and not fit for purpose. It should be given a complete overhaul. But this is not a priority for this (or any previous) government … so we end up tweaking away at little bits of the Act at a time through piecemeal reform via other legislative vehicles.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  187. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    AG, so we have a clear legal precedent that prevents adoption on the basis of a persons sexuality. Just checking.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  188. AG (1,784 comments) says:

    Dennis,

    By observation and with no data I conclude the penis and vagina evolved to fit together, just as the mouth evolved to receive food.

    But surely even “a simple chap who doesn’t get bamboozled by data and statistics” can recognise that an organ that evolved for one purpose (receiving food) has enabled us as a species to do something else – namely, communicate with one another and thus develop highly complex societies that transcend the limitations of our subsistence forbears. By your logic, the ears that evolved to sense the sound of predators/prey on the African Savannah should not be used to listen to Beethoven or Mahler … not even to One Direction.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  189. AG (1,784 comments) says:

    AG, so we have a clear legal precedent that prevents adoption on the basis of a persons sexuality. Just checking.

    Nope. You seem confused about the relationship of sexuality and gender. Look in a dictionary.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  190. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    AG, Ok then.

    Can you direct me to the legislation, or case law, that makes that distinction ?

    I want to see specific real world legal examples. Gay men can adopt girls, or can not be charged with male assaults female, due the their gender not being the same as their sexuality. That sort of thing.

    You smarmy little smart arse !

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  191. Dennis Horne (2,059 comments) says:

    @AG. Clearly the mouth has evolved for speech and the ear has evolved for listening. Equally clearly the rectum has not evolved to receive the penis, and men playing with each other’s willies is a biological absurdity. It may be pleasurable and fun, I don’t know. To me it’s not sex, it’s mucking about. (For heterosexuals, masturbation is a substitute, not a preference.)

    I do not want to persecute homosexuals, Many are intelligent, gifted and valuable members of society. They have been treated shamefully. I want homosexuals to be treated equally, but not the same. Because they are not the same.

    We must all play the cards we were given at birth and none of us choose what we are. Otherwise I would be tall, dark, handsome and clever. I would have the answers. I do not. But I know what the questions are.

    The campaign to call civil union/partnership “marriage” has alienated a lot of reasonable and decent people. It has forced people to think about homosexuality. The backlash is coming.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  192. Dennis Horne (2,059 comments) says:

    @AG. Gender is a grammatical term concerning masculine and feminine – as I’m sure you know. It has been taken into the language to avoid the word sex, because sex now usually means sexual intercourse. It’s unfortunate, we should return to the original meanings.

    What you are really talking about it the difference between sex (male, female) and sexuality (sexual behaviour).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  193. AG (1,784 comments) says:

    @Kea,

    You’re point is too opaque to deserve further attention. As I said, the Adoption Act is riddled with out-of-date provisions and assumptions. Just why you keep banging on about this particular one is beyond me … so I’ll stop caring.

    @Dennis,

    But I thought the mouth had “evolved” for eating? Or, is your definition of “evolved” nothing more than “things we do with it”? In which case, you’ll accept the mouth also evolved for fellatio? Ain’t “evolution” grand, giving us something that can do all these things!

    @Dennis,

    Accepted. But it ain’t my hang up – have a chat to Kea about it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  194. Chuck Bird (4,687 comments) says:

    AG, you are good with words or semantics but not very good with logic, statistics or common sense like many lawyers and judges. Like most libertarians you follow the ideology like a fundamentalist Christian who believes the word was created a little over 6000 years ago in seven 24 hour days.

    Homosexuals make up definitely less than 5% of the population. Those of us who believe in democracy are concerned that a small fanatical group.

    If a man’s wife and sister die in a car crash he could adopt his nephew but not his niece. I would be sure most of the rational for that would be the thought that a man would be considered to be a too likely to sexually abuse a girl.

    Air NZ has a policy of not allowing a male passenger to sit next to an unaccompanied child but a male homosexual steward can. The HRC ignored complaints about this discrimination but will take up any trivial complain by a homosexual.

    We have a case of a bisexual teacher up North sexually abusing numerous boys. If a teacher had a female student sleep over once it would not happen a second time. About 15 years ago a complaint was made at another school and nothing was done – why? It is because so many people are scared of the label homophobe.

    Male homosexuals make up 3% of the population but there are nearly as many sexually abused adolescent boys as adolescent girls and the vast majority of sexual abused boys are abuse by homosexual men.

    Homosexual activists and their idiot libertarian supporter have a lot to answer for.

    Those concerned about the welfare of adolescent boys check out Dr Judith Reisman.

    http://drjudithreisman.org/

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  195. Dennis Horne (2,059 comments) says:

    @AG. You can wriggle and you can squirm and you can sidetrack and you can nitpick, but the rectum has not evolved to receive the penis. Of course it can receive a fist or an eel, just as the mouth can receive a scallop or a mortar shell. What all this means is some people make sound, reasoned judgements while others are fucked in the head. Fellatio, as you put it. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  196. Chuck Bird (4,687 comments) says:

    Must reading for those concerned about the welfare of boys.

    254 ‘boy words’

    http://www.wnd.com/2000/11/3081/

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  197. AG (1,784 comments) says:

    Dennis,

    You show a peculiar fixation on anal sex. Just sayin’.

    Chuck,

    Democracy is great! Which is why we’re getting elected MPs to make same sex marriage and adoption legal in NZ, as opposed to the courts (as in the US and Canada). This is a strength of our system of government … which allows the alleged majority sick of it all to respond by voting for the Conservative Party, if they so choose. How are they doing in the polls?

    As for “If a man’s wife and sister die in a car crash he could adopt his nephew but not his niece”, this is wrong. Try actually reading the law you are talking about (specifically, the bit about “that there are special circumstances which justify the making of an adoption order”).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  198. Dennis Horne (2,059 comments) says:

    AG (1,551) Says: March 27th, 2013 at 8:50 am
    Dennis, You show a peculiar fixation on anal sex. Just sayin’.

    It’s kind of you but no thanks. Incidentally, it’s only since this oxymoron of homosexual marriage showed its ugly rump… ;)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  199. Chuck Bird (4,687 comments) says:

    AG, I wonder if there was a poll how many people would call a 3 year dictatorship where arrogant MPs – half without an electorate – can implement policy not in any manifesto opposed by 87% of the voters democratic. And Key wants the term extended to 4 years.

    So there are special circumstances. Why should there be in the case of a girl? The law is there because or perceived or real risk.

    In the case of male homosexuals there is a real risk you failed to address. I repeat it below. How is your math and basic statistics?

    Male homosexuals make up 3% of the population but there are nearly as many sexually abused adolescent boys as adolescent girls and the vast majority of sexual abused boys are abuse by homosexual men.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  200. AG (1,784 comments) says:

    So there are special circumstances. Why should there be in the case of a girl? The law is there because or perceived or real risk.

    Because the law was passed in 1955, and it is hopelessly out of date. I honestly don’t know what you (and Kea) think you are proving with this point. That because the law has a silly rule based on an outdated presumption, it should continue to have a different silly rule based on another outdated presumption? Forgive me if I yawn.

    In the case of male homosexuals there is a real risk you failed to address. I repeat it below. How is your math and basic statistics?

    DPF did a useful fisking of statistics such as you quote here: http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2012/05/sexual_violence_statistics.html. So you’ll forgive me if I simply tell you that all the maths and basic statistical knowledge in the world won’t help when the data is flawed. Or, garbage in, garbage out.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  201. Chuck Bird (4,687 comments) says:

    Forgive me if I yawn.

    Andrew if you want to trade insults rather than debate as intelligently as you are able that is okay with me.

    It is no bloody wonder we have so many stupid decisions coming from arrogant and ignorant know are judges when lawyers are trained by someone as illogical as you.

    Rather than debate the statistics of sexual about of underage adolescents by homosexuals you refer me to an earlier thread by libertarian DPF and think I should accept it. I just need a quick glance to see it is flawed. It make a big point if the sexual advances were unwanted or not.

    I say sexual advances even if wanted by someone underage is sexual abuse. I hope you would agree.

    BTW – what did you think of the dickhead of a judge that gave non-custodial to a couple who seriously abused a two year old foster-child?

    Also what do you think of the stupid female politically correct judge who ruled than someone who knows they are HIV+ does not have to inform their partner of their HIV status as long as they use a condom. I wonder if the cow would be happy to be fucked by them as long as they used a condom.

    Lawyers and judges need a lot more training and by someone a little more logical than you.

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

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.