Now who was it that advised me that this bill was no longer something worth discussing, on account of it having not got passed the senate?
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/samesex-adoption-bill-divides-libs-20100901-14mot.html


Told you so!


::)

This is inevitable. Same sex adoption and foster care has been going on for years in the States and they have found it very successful.

It's hard for those of us who were brought up conservatively to accept that this is the way forward, because homosexuality was illegal nationally until the late 80's.
.
Now there are so many same sex couples and the numbers have increased dramatically with Generation X and Y who know the freedom of being able to express their sexual preference without guilt.

We can't deny an ever increasing proportion of the population the right to adopt children when heterosexual people can.  

Besides adoption is a long and arduous process, so those who will adopt successfully would ultimately be exemplary parents.

The sky is falling!


but seriously though, it's a dumb idea, and I will never ever support it.  It makes a mockery of nature, and you know what happens when man thinks he is above natures power?  

If a child gets loving caring people to care for it; then who cares what sexuality these people are.

If we bring "nature" into the debate, then we all must admit that 98% of "nature" suggest that monogamy is against "nature"

Where does that leave us?

A loving family is far better than growing up in an orphanage, especially if it's a Catholic one.

culldav wrote on Sep 1^st, 2010 at 12:41pm:

If a child gets loving caring people to care for it; then who cares what sexuality these people are.

I couldnt agree more.

I have spoken to my three gay friends about this topic, all three agree, a child 'ideally' requires both a male and female parent figure in their lives, this and themselves think it's a bad idea due to same sex deviants pretending they are gay just to gain access to kids.

Be they male or female.

Neither of my gay male friends plan on getting married, this or having kids, either naturally or via adoption.

:(

If they wont even recognise the marriage of gay couples, how is it they can condone their adopting children?

Double standards!

I disagree with single adoption also, and think couples should be at least married for 5 years before even being considered.

We are talking about kids here, not puppies, and should their dabble at parenting not quite work out, it's not like you can return them to the pound.
::).....They are making it too easy for sicko's...be they gay or straight to get hold of kids.

Anyone with a criminal clearance could declare themselves gay, this and a couple, then apply for adoption if this bills passed.

Have they thought about what's in the best interests of the kids?

Kids have rights too you know, the right to both a maternal and paternal parent figure.

:)

mellie wrote on Sep 1^st, 2010 at 12:59pm:

If they wont even recognise the marriage of gay couples, how is it they can condone their adopting children? Double standards! I disagree with single adoption also, and think couples should be at least married for 5 years before even being considered. We are talking about kids here, not puppies, and should their dabble at parenting not quite work out, it's not like you can return them to the pound. ::).....They are making it too easy for sicko's...be they gay or straight to get hold of kids. Anyone with a criminal clearance could declare themselves gay, this and a couple, then apply for adoption if this bills passed. Have they thought about what's in the best interests of the kids? Kids have rights too you know, the right to both a maternal and paternal parent figure. :)

"Anyone with a criminal clearance could declare themselves gay, this and a couple, then apply for adoption if this bills passed."

Not likely mellie....there are criminal history checks for ALL potential adoptive parents...

That's amazing Mellie... you see I also have many gay friends and although I haven't spoken to the recently about this, it has been a dinner topic in the past.

They all agree that same sex couples should have the same access to adoption and IVF programs as traditional couples and singles. And whilst they agree that both genders should serve as role models for the children, those role models can be found outside of the same sex relationship amongst close friends and relatives.

Sappho wrote on Sep 1^st, 2010 at 1:06pm:

That's amazing Mellie... you see I also have many gay friends and although I haven't spoken to the recently about this, it has been a dinner topic in the past. They all agree that same sex couples should have the same access to adoption and IVF programs as traditional couples and singles. And whilst they agree that both genders should serve as role models for the children, those role models can be found outside of the same sex relationship amongst close friends and relatives.

gee, what a surpsie - gay people think that gay people should be allowed to do whatever they want.

Quote:

gee, what a surpsie - gay people think that gay people should be allowed to do whatever they want.

No. Just gay people thinking they should be treated the same as straight people.

mellie wrote on Sep 1^st, 2010 at 12:13pm:

Now who was it that advised me that this bill was no longer something worth discussing, on account of it having not got passed the senate? Told you so! ::)

It's got nothing to DO with "the senate" - you NONG
Aboption laws fall under STATE legislation, not Federal




The bill, introduced by independent Sydney MP Clover Moore, would allow same-sex couples to adopt a child together.

Opposition community services spokeswoman Pru Goward supports the bill.
She says the best thing for children is to be cared for and loved by parents, regardless of their sexual orientation.

Speaking on ABC Radio, she questioned why a single homosexual person could adopt a child and a same-sex couple could foster a child, but a same-sex couple could not adopt.

Ms Goward said the bill was about the rights of children having access to parents.

"I'm thinking in particular of inheritance rights, visitation rights and post-divorce or separation rights," she said.

The government and the opposition have both agreed to give their members a conscience vote on the bill.


http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/samesex-adoption-bill-divides-libs-20100901-14mot.html



The MAIN driver behind this legislation is to give parental rights to the care-givers of non-birth children in a same-sex partnership
As well as protecting the rights of children in the event of separation or death of a non-birth care-giver

In an ideal world, man loves woman (or woman loves man), man and woman get married, man and woman have child (maybe 2 or 3), and live happily ever after.

The reality, as we're all aware, is somewhat different and that's not to say better or worse.

However, we are under no illusions that more often than has been the case before, children are born into unsuitable environments, finding themselves placed in foster care or remaining with unfit biological parents (to name but two of the many different scenarios).

Personally, I'd endorse anything that sees a child placed in a loving, caring and responsible environment, REGARDLESS of the sexuality of the parents.

Life_goes_on wrote on Sep 1^st, 2010 at 1:27pm:

Quote: gee, what a surpsie - gay people think that gay people should be allowed to do whatever they want. No. Just gay people thinking they should be treated the same as straight people.

I would agree....if they WERE the same.  

I maintain that 'ideally' children should have the best of both worlds, both a maternal and paternal parent figure in their lives.

It's not like there's a shortage of heterosexual couples willing to adopt children these days, if anything, it's getting harder to formally adopt child due to the worry of their biological parents wanting them back.
I personally think there needs to be changes here, afterall, it's about what's best for the kids 'first' and if they are doing well with their foster parents, why give their dead-beat biological parents another crack at stuffing up if the kids want to stay with their foster parents?
Kids do better when they feel similar to their same age peers, thrive better in a community when they have something in common with everyone else.  The leading cause of bullying is difference, and intolerance, it's like sending them to school already stigmatised and branded with an uncertainty before they have even had a chance at being who they are themselves.

Ok, we hear so much about gay rights, but what about kids rights, who speaks for them?

Don't tell me that slumber party's would be a huge hit among the ignorance of homophobic  mainstream society, can you imagine how the children might feel about introducing their friends to their two mums or dads? AWKWARD!!!

It's hard being a kid especially a teenager these days, any little difference, the wrong cloths, the wrong video-game, etc can result in their being alienated, teased at school.

I'm sure plenty of gay couples would make fantastic parents, but I'm more concerned about the effect this could have on the kids, this and how other parents might not feel comfortable allowing them to sleep-over and or hang-out at a gay household, people are still quite thingo about this sort of thing, even those who themselves profess to be gay-tolerant.

I found this out not too long ago when my son had a slumber party and invited several kids over.

I had 3 phone calls asking if it was true that a certain kid (who himself is gay) would be sleeping over, and if so, where would he be sleeping.

I was quite shocked actually, two of these parents I have known for no less than 8 years, yet they were not happy with their son staying over knowing my son had invited his gay friend.

Anyway, the slumber party went ahead, minus 4 kids who were not allowed on account of their not feeling ok about one of the kids being gay.  My son was quite unhappy with it, and stuck by his guns, and the gay boy stayed as did 2 others who's parents weren't so prejudiced.

It's a sad reality, but I doubt these same parents would allow their kids to stay over at this boys house, be he gay or not this and had 2 gay parents.

I think many people still think homosexuality is contagious.

We know better, but unfortunately, many people don't.



What do you do? ::)

Can we have an end to people of any persuasion shopping overseas for a baby?

That idea makes me feel sick - "yeah honey, let's get a baby in Botswana".

Or let's bring back cojoined twins from Sri Lanka.

Please delete wrote on Sep 1^st, 2010 at 2:05pm:

Can we have an end to people of any persuasion shopping overseas for a baby? That idea makes me feel sick - "yeah honey, let's get a baby in Botswana". Or let's bring back conjoined twins from Sri Lanka.

No, because Angelina Jolie and Madonna brought it in vogue.

8-)...Who do Cruises and Kidmans kids live with, we rarely hear anything about the two black-kids they adopted together, or did they trade them in?

Please delete wrote on Sep 1^st, 2010 at 2:05pm:

Can we have an end to people of any persuasion shopping overseas for a baby? That idea makes me feel sick - "yeah honey, let's get a baby in Botswana". Or let's bring back cojoined twins from Sri Lanka.

It's a supply and demand thing.
Only a few dozen Australian babies come up for adoption each year. For the other several hundred couples wanting to adopt they have no option but to try and adopt a child from overseas.

Life_goes_on wrote on Sep 1^st, 2010 at 1:27pm:

Quote: gee, what a surpsie - gay people think that gay people should be allowed to do whatever they want. No. Just gay people thinking they should be treated the same as straight people.

But they aren't the same are they, so why do we need to pretend otherwise.
It's one thing to recognise same sex couples union rights in conjunction with financial equity should a partner die etc.
That makes sense.
But children?
Thats a whole new ball game altogether.
A woman in Russia was recently located living in the forest who was raised successfully from a young age by wolves.
Apart from barking, growling, biting ankles and walking on hands and knees, with some education she turned out alright.
Now, no-one is suggesting that this accidental social experiment should continue.
How many gay people do you know with a maternal or paternal instinct, because I certainly know none that do.
They don't have them.
They just want children so they can feel 'the same', but who is caring for the welfare of the child.
They have their manbags and poodles, adding another accessory such as a child is unnecessary.
The politicians have this one right for once.

... wrote on Sep 1^st, 2010 at 1:35pm:

Life_goes_on wrote on Sep 1st, 2010 at 1:27pm: Quote: gee, what a surpsie - gay people think that gay people should be allowed to do whatever they want. No. Just gay people thinking they should be treated the same as straight people. I would agree....if they WERE the same.

How are they not the same, in wanting to adopt and raise children//

Same-sex couples ARE the same as any other childless couples in that respect...

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Sep 1^st, 2010 at 2:13pm:

Life_goes_on wrote on Sep 1st, 2010 at 1:27pm: Quote: gee, what a surpsie - gay people think that gay people should be allowed to do whatever they want. No. Just gay people thinking they should be treated the same as straight people. But they aren't the same are they, so why do we need to pretend otherwise. It's one thing to recognise same sex couples union rights in conjunction with financial equity should a partner die etc. That makes sense. But children? Thats a whole new ball game altogether. A woman in Russia was recently located living in the forest who was raised successfully from a young age by wolves. Apart from barking, growling, biting ankles and walking on hands and knees, with some education she turned out alright. Now, no-one is suggesting that this accidental social experiment should continue. How many gay people do you know with a maternal or paternal instinct, because I certainly know none that do. They don't have them. They just want children so they can feel 'the same', but who is caring for the welfare of the child. They have their manbags and poodles, adding another accessory such as a child is unnecessary. The politicians have this one right for once.

I know quite a number of gay people with more maternal or paternal instinct than a lot of hetero people who DO have children....

"Only a few dozen Australian babies come up for adoption each year. For the other several hundred couples wanting to adopt they have no option but to try and adopt a child from overseas. "

And? The poor dears are childless, so they can do anything they want to fill that hole in their poor hollow lives? Makes me ill.

Please delete wrote on Sep 1^st, 2010 at 2:05pm:

Can we have an end to people of any persuasion shopping overseas for a baby? That idea makes me feel sick - "yeah honey, let's get a baby in Botswana". Or let's bring back cojoined twins from Sri Lanka.

Most babies who would once have been adopted are now aborted in the West. This is why people go overseas to those nations where abortion is not so prevalent in order to adopt a baby.

This is not a complaint against abortion... I am just citing a consequence of abortion.

Reality is its not hard for a woman to get access to IVF in order for the lesbian couple to have a child.  

There is also cases where the mum and the dad have the kids, down the track dad decides he like Dave more than Mary, moves out, but still retains his parental rights.

Reality is outside of the bedroom, they are exactly the same as the rest of us.

I would rather a child brought up in a loving, stable, financially secure gay home, than other alternatives.

Verge wrote on Sep 1^st, 2010 at 2:20pm:

Reality is its not hard for a woman to get access to IVF in order for the lesbian couple to have a child.   There is also cases where the mum and the dad have the kids, down the track dad decides he like Dave more than Mary, moves out, but still retains his parental rights. Reality is outside of the bedroom, they are exactly the same as the rest of us. I would rather a child brought up in a loving, stable, financially secure gay home, than other alternatives.

But what would the CHILD rather?

You also seem to be suffering from the misconception that gays are not subject to the saem failings that everyone else is.

Politicians need to stop playing 'god' and passing bills in order appeal to specific minority groups, with their poll-driven policies.

These kids deserve the best possible chance at a 'regular' life, and I cant see the point in stigmatise them just to appeal to specific focus-groups for votes.

If Penny Wong and the ALP oppose gay marriage, then how is it they can condone gay-adoption?

Enough social experimenting, and more policy making in the areas which require more of their attention, ie, known paedophile parents being awarded custody of their children, as though it were their right.

What about the kids?

Is someone thinking about them?

Clearly not.

::)

... wrote on Sep 1^st, 2010 at 2:23pm:

Verge wrote on Sep 1st, 2010 at 2:20pm: Reality is its not hard for a woman to get access to IVF in order for the lesbian couple to have a child.   There is also cases where the mum and the dad have the kids, down the track dad decides he like Dave more than Mary, moves out, but still retains his parental rights. Reality is outside of the bedroom, they are exactly the same as the rest of us. I would rather a child brought up in a loving, stable, financially secure gay home, than other alternatives. But what would the CHILD rather?

What would the CHILD rather???

Most children woud rather have people who love and care for them, don't neglect them, feed, change and comfort them....

Babies and small children have NO concept of sexuality whatsoever....

They can't even distinguish, or recognise the difference between 'Mummy' and 'Daddy' until they're taught to....

All they can recognise is the difference between comfort and pain.....

mellie wrote on Sep 1^st, 2010 at 2:26pm:

These kids deserve the best possible chance at a 'regular' life, and I cant see the point in stigmatise them just to appeal to specific focus-groups for votes. What about the kids? Is someone thinking about them? Clearly not.

Of course being in and out of foster care and in and out of unstable homes is so much better for a child than a loving families home who just happen to be gay.

The dark ages millie, you're stuck in them.  The traditional home is all but gone, and the soon you realise this and adapt the easier it will be for you to see what is really going on and not some pipe dream of the way things used to be.

... wrote on Sep 1^st, 2010 at 2:23pm:

Verge wrote on Sep 1st, 2010 at 2:20pm: Reality is its not hard for a woman to get access to IVF in order for the lesbian couple to have a child.   There is also cases where the mum and the dad have the kids, down the track dad decides he like Dave more than Mary, moves out, but still retains his parental rights. Reality is outside of the bedroom, they are exactly the same as the rest of us. I would rather a child brought up in a loving, stable, financially secure gay home, than other alternatives. But what would the CHILD rather? You also seem to be suffering from the misconception that gays are not subject to the saem failings that everyone else is.

Ok, these situations occur, re- gay-IVF woman and Dad preferring Dave later on down the track, but passing bills to legalise gay-adoption is just typical of Labors poll driven policy/social engineering.

Where they get to play 'god' for a term.

::) ....Just because it's legal, doesn't mean it's right.

All kids deserve the right to both a male and female parenting figure, if this fails, then sure, improvise, but I think it's a biological right of all, ...likewise, I'm opposed to single straight woman receiving IVF.

Again, the child is being denied the opportunity of both a maternal and paternal figure in their lives.

Quote:

But what would the CHILD rather?

A loving, stable, financially secure home?

A friend of mine grew up with two "mums" and she's just fine about it. She's simply never seen an issue with it.

... wrote on Sep 1^st, 2010 at 2:23pm:

Verge wrote on Sep 1st, 2010 at 2:20pm: Reality is its not hard for a woman to get access to IVF in order for the lesbian couple to have a child.   There is also cases where the mum and the dad have the kids, down the track dad decides he like Dave more than Mary, moves out, but still retains his parental rights. Reality is outside of the bedroom, they are exactly the same as the rest of us. I would rather a child brought up in a loving, stable, financially secure gay home, than other alternatives. But what would the CHILD rather? You also seem to be suffering from the misconception that gays are not subject to the saem failings that everyone else is.

I think a kid would want to grow up in a loving stable home.

Of course they are subject to the same failings as everyone else, so why should adoption be only for hetro couples.  Why dont they just have to accept they can have kids and move on?

Isn't the number of children waiting to be adopted much smaller than the queues of people who desire to adopt? If so, how is this an issue?

Quote:

She's simply never seen an issue with it.

She's in for a shock when she finally finds out how babies are made then.

Quote:

You also seem to be suffering from the misconception that gays are not subject to the saem failings that everyone else is.

They're subject to the same failings, same aspirations, same emotions.

I find it amusing people who are against it keep saying it goes against nature.

Doesnt adoption full stop go against nature, giving couples who cant have kids getting to have them?

Statistical analysis of children adopted by gay parents is required before we jump right into the widespread acceptance and institutionalization of homo adoption. If it can be determined that being raised in the household of a functional, normal gay couple is more likely than not a cause of the development of social pathologies amongst their children, then we have a fairly good reason to restrict the right of gay parents from adopting.

mellie wrote on Sep 1^st, 2010 at 2:29pm:

... wrote on Sep 1st, 2010 at 2:23pm: Verge wrote on Sep 1st, 2010 at 2:20pm: Reality is its not hard for a woman to get access to IVF in order for the lesbian couple to have a child.   There is also cases where the mum and the dad have the kids, down the track dad decides he like Dave more than Mary, moves out, but still retains his parental rights. Reality is outside of the bedroom, they are exactly the same as the rest of us. I would rather a child brought up in a loving, stable, financially secure gay home, than other alternatives. But what would the CHILD rather? You also seem to be suffering from the misconception that gays are not subject to the saem failings that everyone else is. Ok, these situations occur, re- gay-IVF woman and Dad preferring Dave later on down the track, but passing bills to legalise gay-adoption is just typical of Labors poll driven policy/social engineering. Where they get to play 'god' for a term. ::) ....Just because it's legal, doesn't mean it's right. All kids deserve the right to both a male and female parenting figure, if this fails, then sure, improvise, but I think it's a biological right of all, ...likewise, I'm opposed to single straight woman receiving IVF. Again, the child is being denied the opportunity of both a maternal and paternal figure in their lives.

No mellie....
All children 'deserve the right' to be raised by a person or people who loves and cares for them....

Unless you feel that single parent families (single mother OR single father) should be made illegal too..

Verge wrote on Sep 1^st, 2010 at 2:38pm:

I find it amusing people who are against it keep saying it goes against nature. Doesnt adoption full stop go against nature, giving couples who cant have kids getting to have them?

For that matter 1 male+1 female coupling goes against nature...
The 'norm' in nature is 1 male+5 female....

AND usually the 'new' male kills and/or eats  the offspring of the previous male....

mellie wrote on Sep 1^st, 2010 at 2:29pm:

Ok, these situations occur, re- gay-IVF woman and Dad preferring Dave later on down the track, but passing bills to legalise gay-adoption is just typical of Labors poll driven policy/social engineering. Where they get to play 'god' for a term. ::) ....Just because it's legal, doesn't mean it's right. All kids deserve the right to both a male and female parenting figure, if this fails, then sure, improvise, but I think it's a biological right of all, ...likewise, I'm opposed to single straight woman receiving IVF. Again, the child is being denied the opportunity of both a maternal and paternal figure in their lives.

Why don't you think about what you're saying Mel?  Approximately one third of our kids grow up in households with only one parent - and that's an overstatement.

Single parents are stressed and anxious a lot of the time. They can't give their children the quality time they demand. Two parents of either sex are better than just one as long as the child/children are wanted and loved.

You have a son at high school Mel. You must have some awareness that many of his classmates are bi-sexual or gay.  People have to choose their own partners and there is no logical reason why they shouldn't have the same rights as anyone else.




 

aikmann4 wrote on Sep 1^st, 2010 at 2:43pm:

Statistical analysis of children adopted by gay parents is required before we jump right into its widespread acceptance and institutionalization. If it can be determined that being raised in the household of a functional, normal gay couple is more likely than not a cause of the development of social pathologies amongst their children, then we have a fairly good reason to restrict the right of gay parents from adopting.

I havent seen the stats, but it would be interesting to see the ones out of the US.

I haven't either. I don't think any exist yet, which is why we need studies. Progressives are always willing to dive headfirst into any notion with no looking back without cautiously asking amongst themselves whether it will be a good idea, and applying statistical tools to inform their final decision on the matter. Look at multiculturalism, multiracialism, civil rights, etc. to see that this observation holds true.

aikmann4 wrote on Sep 1^st, 2010 at 2:43pm:

Statistical analysis of children adopted by gay parents is required before we jump right into its widespread acceptance and institutionalization. If it can be determined that being raised in the household of a functional, normal gay couple is more likely than not a cause of the development of social pathologies amongst their children, then we have a fairly good reason to restrict the right of gay parents from adopting.

And what if it's determined that they're less likely to cause the development of social pathologies amongst their children?

Do we then encourage more gay and lesbian couples to adopt?

Bare in mind, adoption is first about the 'child'  not those who wish to adopt them.

Being a kid is tough enough, why make it harder than it has to be for them to fit in at school?

I cant see too many heterosexual parents being OK with their own children sleeping over at a gay household, because unfortunately, there still exists much prejudice in our society.

It might not get said out-loud in polite company, but if my sons slumber party was any indication, (I will just add his gay-friend  has been beaten up more times than I can tell you in the last year)...  my son being a popular kid now protects him though....when he's at school, but the thing is, kids can be cruel, really really cruel, and I know for certain if it weren't for my son and his mates looking after this boy, then he would have left school well before now, and despite the protection my son offers his mate at school, the A-holes find a way of getting to him after school, tagging up his house, and all sorts of wretched things.

Recently, they binned his bag....up-ended the contents of his bag, turned it inside out and stuffed it in a school bin.

Apparently it's still cool to gay-bash among some uncouth yobs and their red-neck parents, so imagine what they would do if they knew another kids parents were gay?

Prejudice and intolerance is very real, so before passing these laws, I might suggest some security in our kids playgrounds might be a good idea.

I had one parent who called me (I think from the pub) and in no uncertain terms advise that my allowing my son to have gay friends would be one of the biggest mistakes of my life.

Naturally, this made me even more determined to allow this slumber party to go ahead!

And it did...without a hitch.

....... But there's still the predicable few who more or less egg their own children on to humiliate and degrade gay students at school, as though it were acceptable.

These attitudes aren't changed over night, and or by passing new bills, first-most, children should always be considered first.

Adopted parents always get the "You aren't my real parents anyway so you cant tell me what to do" thingy at some point...   it's inevitable, and it hurts, (My children's father was adopted), but imagine these kids going to school blowing off steam to mates, telling all about his/her gay parents, this and even condemning the situation themselves this and then after having done so, expecting things to be business as usual when they have gotten over their parent-war...  no way, it's not going to happen.

If anything, we will have kids suing a future government for having been deprived of an optimal environment, in the event their own lives somehow end up a wreck.

Not unlike we saw with indigenous children being adopted out to white family's and things not working out there also.

When will we learn to stop meddling?


::)

I'm not making any policy prescriptions here because I don't care about fags. I'm just cautioning on a sensible route of action.

"Bare in mind, adoption is first about the 'child'  not those who wish to adopt them."

But then we hear bleats about poor childless couples - I would argue adoption is INCREDIBLY INHERENTLY selfish.

Quote:

I haven't either. I don't think any exist yet, which is why we need studies.

According to Wiki there are plenty which have been done by reputable institutions.


Quote:

Indeed, the scientific research that has directly compared outcomes for children with gay and lesbian parents with outcomes for children with heterosexual parents has been remarkably consistent in showing that lesbian and gay parents are every bit as fit and capable as heterosexual parents, and their children are as psychologically healthy and well-adjusted as children reared by heterosexual parents,[23][9][20][27][22][28] despite the reality that considerable legal discrimination and inequity remain significant challenges for these families.[20] These data have demonstrated no risk to children as a result of growing up in a family with 1 or more gay parents.[29]

Google is your friend, but I can only assume it'd be an epic job sorting the sources and determining any obvious bias one way or another.

Quote:

Google is your friend

Problem is I really just didn't care enough to look them up. Fag rights is a non-issue and a political distractor that people expend an inordinate amount of energy wasting their time arguing about.

mellie wrote on Sep 1^st, 2010 at 2:52pm:

Bare in mind, adoption is first about the 'child'  not those who wish to adopt them. Being a kid is tough enough, why make it harder than it has to be for them to fit in at school? I cant see too many heterosexual parents being OK with their own children sleeping over at a gay household, because unfortunately, there still exists much prejudice in our society. It might not get said out-loud in polite company, but if my sons slumber party was any indication, (I will just add his gay-friend  has been beaten up more times than I can tell you in the last year)...  my son being a popular kid now protects him though....when he's at school, but the thing is, kids can be cruel, really really cruel, and I know for certain if it weren't for my son and his mates looking after this boy, then he would have left school well before now, and despite the protection my son offers his mate at school, the A-holes find a way of getting to him after school, tagging up his house, and all sorts of wretched things. Recently, they binned his bag....up-ended the contents of his bag, turned it inside out and stuffed it in a school bin. Apparently it's still cool to gay-bash among some uncouth yobs and their red-neck parents, so imagine what they would do if they knew another kids parents were gay? Prejudice and intolerance is very real, so before passing these laws, I might suggest some security in our kids playgrounds might be a good idea. I had one parent who called me (I think from the pub) and in no uncertain terms advise that my allowing my son to have gay friends would be one of the biggest mistakes of my life. Naturally, this made me even more determined to allow this slumber party to go ahead! And it did...without a hitch. ....... But there's still the predicable few who more or less egg their own children on to humiliate and degrade gay students at school, as though it were acceptable. These attitudes aren't changed over night, and or by passing new bills, first-most, children should always be considered first. Adopted parents always get the "You aren't my real parents anyway so you cant tell me what to do" thingy at some point...   it's inevitable, and it hurts, (My children's father was adopted), but imagine these kids going to school blowing off steam to mates, telling all about his/her gay parents, this and even condemning the situation themselves this and then after having done so, expecting things to be business as usual when they have gotten over their parent-war...  no way, it's not going to happen. If anything, we will have kids suing a future government for having been deprived of an optimal environment, in the event their own lives somehow end up a wreck. Not unlike we saw with indigenous children being adopted out to white family's and things not working out there also. When will we learn to stop meddling? ::)

Mellie...children aren't born with a 'sense' of 'right and wrong'...
All bigotry, whether based on skin colour, religion or sexual preference, is LEARNED behaviour, and is taught by the parents(and by society, to a lesser extent)....
If you're sons gay friend has been beaten up....then that is fully, and ONLY, the fault of the parents of the kids who beat him....

Children, until they are indoctrinated by their parents (or other 'Authority' figures) don't care, and have NO opinion on any thing about differences..

They don't care if a parent is black, white or yellow....they don't care what political party you follow, what religion you are, what footy team/code you follow or what your sexual preference is.....UNTIL they get 'taught' to care.....

Mantra, this isn't about the rights of parents, be they gay/straight/partnered or single, it's about what's required in order to give rise to the best possible outcome where the raising of children is concerned.

Sometimes, circumstances would have it that this isn't always possible, but we shouldn't be intentionally burdening children with these circumstances, simply because they sometimes do happen, this and work out OK.

:).....  Like I said, society can be bloody nasty, this and narrow minded also, I'm sure if you asked any 13 year old in the event of their parents having passed away would they prefer to be adopted by a gay or straight couple, they would (unless they were gay themselves) prefer a more normal, and less 'stigmatory'/'unusual' home-life.

Bare in mind, anything that deviates from the stereo-typical at school is prone to scrutiny. Be it a disability, their home-circumstance, the way they talk or walk...right down to the music they listen to and clothes on their backs.

Being a foster kid is tough enough, why make it harder than it has to be?

:-/Jeeze....

Again, I don't agree with single parents adopting kids either.

Quote:

Mellie...children aren't born with a 'sense' of 'right and wrong'... All bigotry, whether based on skin colour, religion or sexual preference, is LEARNED behaviour, and is taught by the parents(and by society, to a lesser extent).... If you're sons gay friend has been beaten up....then that is fully, and ONLY, the fault of the parents of the kids who beat him.... Children, until they are indoctrinated by their parents (or other 'Authority' figures) don't care, and have NO opinion on any thing about differences.. They don't care if a parent is black, white or yellow....they don't care what political party you follow, what religion you are, what footy team/code you follow or what your sexual preference is.....UNTIL they get 'taught' to care.

By Giz

True, but not all kids are raised with the same degree of tolerance and understanding, unless of course they plan to exclude them from a mainstream school when the harassment and bullying starts.

You cant change a world view with the passing of a bill, we are talking about generations of entrenched ideology, hatred and prejudice, and if their idea is to put it out there and into peoples faces,(cop-this, this is now the law)... this only stands to worsen the situation for hereto-others who themselves have been on the list waiting for their adoption child for years.  And yes, it takes years.

It's abut what's in the best interests of the children, not passing laws to appease a minority demanding equal rights.

Children have rights too, though why is it theirs are quite often the last to be considered?

Child abuse costs our country up to and beyond $40 billion annually, shouldn't we be trying to solve an already 'cracked' system, before setting about making any changes to an already shameful situation.

http://www.childhood.org.au/Assets/Files/976067aa-98e0-47fc-a608-cbc3d3c11f06.pdf
........  Time our plutocrats started making meaningful changes, this opposed to suiting themselves and their focus-groups.


Who's thinking about the kids, gay/straight rights aside?

The point I'm making here is, while this government is frantically trying to pass bills for gay-adoption/parenting rights, there are so many more areas/rights more worthy of their attention, don't you think?


The most fundamental of all human biological rights, of which is the right to having both a mum and a dad, and we cant even do our best to grant kids this when their own have failed them?

Kids first!

>:(

mellie wrote on Sep 1^st, 2010 at 3:28pm:

Mellie...children aren't born with a 'sense' of 'right and wrong'... All bigotry, whether based on skin colour, religion or sexual preference, is LEARNED behaviour, and is taught by the parents(and by society, to a lesser extent).... If you're sons gay friend has been beaten up....then that is fully, and Quote: ONLY, the fault of the parents of the kids who beat him.... Children, until they are indoctrinated by their parents (or other 'Authority' figures) don't care, and have NO opinion on any thing about differences.. They don't care if a parent is black, white or yellow....they don't care what political party you follow, what religion you are, what footy team/code you follow or what your sexual preference is.....UNTIL they get 'taught' to care. By Giz True, but not all kids are raised with the same degree of tolerance and understanding, unless of course they plan to exclude them from a mainstream school when the harassment and bullying starts. You cant change a world view with the passing of a bill, we are talking about generations of entrenched ideology and prejudice, and if their idea is to put it out there and into peoples faces, this only stands to worsen the situation for hereto-others who themselves have been on the list waiting for their child for years.  And yes, it takes years. It's abut what's in the best interests of the children, not passing laws to appease a minority demanding equal rights. Children have rights too, though why is it theirs are quite often the last to be considered? Child abuse costs our country up to and beyond $40 billion annually, shouldn't we be trying to solve an already 'cracked' system, before setting about making any changes to an already shameful situation. http://www.childhood.org.au/Assets/Files/976067aa-98e0-47fc-a608-cbc3d3c11f06.pdf ........  Time our plutocrats started making meaningful changes, this opposed to suiting themselves and their focus-groups. Who;s thinking about the kids, gay/straight rights aside?

But you CAN  legislate in favour of 'Tolerance and understanding' though....

And that will reduce the amount of intolerance and violence directed at 'gay' teens and children....
By educating adults that homosexuality ISN'T a crime or 'sin'..then you reduce the number of parents who teach their children that it's ok to beat up 'gays'....
And the 'best' way to do that is by treating gays the same as everyone else.....

Quote:

But you CAN legislate 'Tolerance and understanding' though.... And that will reduce the amount of intolerance and violence directed at 'gay' teens and children.... By educating adults that homosexuality ISN'T a crime or 'sin'..then you reduce the number of parents who teach their children that it's ok to beat up 'gays'.... And the 'best' way to do that is by treating gays the same as everyone else.....

You can legislate personal attitudes? How?

The most fundamental of all human biological rights, of which is the right to having both a mum and a dad, and we cant even do our best to grant kids this when their own have failed them?

Kids first!

>:(

No, you cant legislate human attitudes, but you can do your best to place children in an environment which doesn't serve to stigmatise, effect them further.

This should be about kids first, not the rights of straight/gay others.

... wrote on Sep 1^st, 2010 at 3:36pm:

Quote: But you CAN legislate 'Tolerance and understanding' though.... And that will reduce the amount of intolerance and violence directed at 'gay' teens and children.... By educating adults that homosexuality ISN'T a crime or 'sin'..then you reduce the number of parents who teach their children that it's ok to beat up 'gays'.... And the 'best' way to do that is by treating gays the same as everyone else..... You can legislate personal attitudes? How?

You can make certain 'unfriendly' or 'violent' attitudes illegal.....

After all, it's now illegal to lynch or assault people because they have a different skin colour.....so using the same laws to protect people with a different sexual preference isn't that hard is it???

mellie wrote on Sep 1^st, 2010 at 3:40pm:

The most fundamental of all human biological rights, of which is the right to having both a mum and a dad, and we cant even do our best to grant kids this when their own have failed them? Kids first! >:( No, you cant legislate human attitudes, but you can do your best to place children in an environment which doesn't serve to stigmatise, effect them further. This should be about kids first, not the rights of straight/gay others.

Oh come on mellie....there is NO fundamental biological right to have parents of different genders....

gizmo_2655 wrote on Sep 1^st, 2010 at 3:45pm:

... wrote on Sep 1st, 2010 at 3:36pm: Quote: But you CAN legislate 'Tolerance and understanding' though.... And that will reduce the amount of intolerance and violence directed at 'gay' teens and children.... By educating adults that homosexuality ISN'T a crime or 'sin'..then you reduce the number of parents who teach their children that it's ok to beat up 'gays'.... And the 'best' way to do that is by treating gays the same as everyone else..... You can legislate personal attitudes? How? You can make certain 'unfriendly' or 'violent' attitudes illegal..... After all, it's now illegal to lynch or assault people because they have a different skin colour.....so using the same laws to protect people with a different sexual preference isn't that hard is it???

ummmmm I'm pretty sure assault is illegal, no matter who it's against.  

gizmo_2655 wrote on Sep 1^st, 2010 at 3:47pm:

mellie wrote on Sep 1st, 2010 at 3:40pm: The most fundamental of all human biological rights, of which is the right to having both a mum and a dad, and we cant even do our best to grant kids this when their own have failed them? Kids first! >:( No, you cant legislate human attitudes, but you can do your best to place children in an environment which doesn't serve to stigmatise, effect them further. This should be about kids first, not the rights of straight/gay others. Oh come on mellie....there is NO fundamental biological right to have parents of different genders....

I'm not sure 'right' is the correct term, but I guess It's impossible for anyone other than a man and a women to produce children for a reason....

mellie wrote on Sep 1^st, 2010 at 3:40pm:

The most fundamental of all human biological rights, of which is the right to having both a mum and a dad, and we cant even do our best to grant kids this when their own have failed them? Kids first! >:( No, you cant legislate human attitudes, but you can do your best to place children in an environment which doesn't serve to stigmatise, effect them further. This should be about kids first, not the rights of straight/gay others.

And IF it's about the kids first......then there is NO reason to bring sexual preference into the discussion..

It should be about WHO can care for the child best....NOT what the parents preference is...

If a person who's attacted to farm animals is the 'best person' to care for the child....then they are THE best person to raise the child.....

The only restriction should be against a person who's sexually attracted TO children.....and since most gays or heteros are NOT attracted to children....there should be no distinction...

Stability of the relationship, financial status and criminal history/emotional state should be the ONLY concerns.....

After all, it's about the child, not the parent...

... wrote on Sep 1^st, 2010 at 3:51pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Sep 1st, 2010 at 3:47pm: mellie wrote on Sep 1st, 2010 at 3:40pm: The most fundamental of all human biological rights, of which is the right to having both a mum and a dad, and we cant even do our best to grant kids this when their own have failed them? Kids first! >:( No, you cant legislate human attitudes, but you can do your best to place children in an environment which doesn't serve to stigmatise, effect them further. This should be about kids first, not the rights of straight/gay others. Oh come on mellie....there is NO fundamental biological right to have parents of different genders.... I'm not sure 'right' is the correct term, but I guess It's impossible for anyone other than a man and a women to produce children for a reason....

Tell mellie that, it's his/her term...

And it's 'impossible' for some hetero couples to have children too.....THAT is the whole point to adoption...

gizmo_2655 wrote on Sep 1^st, 2010 at 3:54pm:

mellie wrote on Sep 1st, 2010 at 3:40pm: The most fundamental of all human biological rights, of which is the right to having both a mum and a dad, and we cant even do our best to grant kids this when their own have failed them? Kids first! >:( No, you cant legislate human attitudes, but you can do your best to place children in an environment which doesn't serve to stigmatise, effect them further. This should be about kids first, not the rights of straight/gay others. And IF it's about the kids first......then there is NO reason to bring sexual preference into the discussion.. It should be about WHO can care for the child best....NOT what the parents preference is... If a person who's attacted to farm animals is the 'best person' to care for the child....then they are THE best person to raise the child..... The only restriction should be against a person who's sexually attracted TO children.....and since most gays or heteros are NOT attracted to children....there should be no distinction... Stability of the relationship, financial status and criminal history/emotional state should be the ONLY concerns..... After all, it's about the child, not the parent...

I think it's clear, that in light of existing social prejudice, coupled with the fact that a current ALP government is itself openly opposed to gay marriage, much less gay adoption, they are yet to sort out their own views, prejudices before attempting to unleash anymore bills.

::)

The whole 'nuclear family unit' living in isolation thing, is a relatively modern and predominantly 'Western' economic construct - historically, humans lived in extended family groups in more collective communities...

Well, If something should happen to my wife and I, I wouldn't want my children to go to a gay couple.

Simple as that.

Does a stable government oppose gay-marriage in one breath, though attempt to legislate gay-adoption in another?

Ask yourself this.

;D

... wrote on Sep 1^st, 2010 at 4:02pm:

Well, If something should happen to my wife and I, I wouldn't want my children to go to a gay couple. Simple as that.

Best put that in your will,...

... wrote on Sep 1^st, 2010 at 4:02pm:

Well, If something should happen to my wife and I, I wouldn't want my children to go to a gay couple. Simple as that.

Why not??

Would you rather your kids went to a disfunctional family, where the husband spent all his time at the pub, talking footy...and the wife spent all her time on the couch, watching Jerry Springer and Oprah...

And the hubby came home at 9pm and slapped his wife around because the house work wasn't done and there was no dinner on the table.....and then the wife took out HER frustrations on the 'adopted' kids?????

mellie wrote on Sep 1^st, 2010 at 4:02pm:

Does a stable government oppose gay-marriage in one breath, though attempt to legislate gay-adoption in another? Ask yourself this. ;D

Two different Governents...

gizmo_2655 wrote on Sep 1^st, 2010 at 3:56pm:

... wrote on Sep 1st, 2010 at 3:51pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Sep 1st, 2010 at 3:47pm: mellie wrote on Sep 1st, 2010 at 3:40pm: The most fundamental of all human biological rights, of which is the right to having both a mum and a dad, and we cant even do our best to grant kids this when their own have failed them? Kids first! >:( No, you cant legislate human attitudes, but you can do your best to place children in an environment which doesn't serve to stigmatise, effect them further. This should be about kids first, not the rights of straight/gay others. Oh come on mellie....there is NO fundamental biological right to have parents of different genders.... I'm not sure 'right' is the correct term, but I guess It's impossible for anyone other than a man and a women to produce children for a reason.... Tell mellie that, it's his/her term... And it's 'impossible' for some hetero couples to have children too.....THAT is the whole point to adoption...

NO, the whole point to adoption is to give a home to children without one....that's why people ahve been saying it's about the children.  It just happens that infertile couples are the most willing, and suitable to provide this home, as everything is there, except for some physical defect which precludes them from conceiving naturally.  
Of course, if gays were willing to admit that their sexuality is a defect, they might fit into this category....but they refuse....so tough.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Sep 1^st, 2010 at 4:07pm:

... wrote on Sep 1st, 2010 at 4:02pm: Well, If something should happen to my wife and I, I wouldn't want my children to go to a gay couple. Simple as that. Why not?? Would you rather your kids went to a disfunctional family, where the husband spent all his time at the pub, talking footy...and the wife spent all her time on the couch, watching Jerry Springer and Oprah... And the hubby came home at 9pm and slapped his wife around because the house work wasn't done and there was no dinner on the table.....and then the wife took out HER frustrations on the 'adopted' kids?????

Oh stop it.  according to the artcile there are '30 or 40' children available for adoption in an average year.....you don't think there are 30 or 40 decent heterosexual couples out there?

... wrote on Sep 1^st, 2010 at 4:09pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Sep 1st, 2010 at 3:56pm: ... wrote on Sep 1st, 2010 at 3:51pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Sep 1st, 2010 at 3:47pm: mellie wrote on Sep 1st, 2010 at 3:40pm: The most fundamental of all human biological rights, of which is the right to having both a mum and a dad, and we cant even do our best to grant kids this when their own have failed them? Kids first! >:( No, you cant legislate human attitudes, but you can do your best to place children in an environment which doesn't serve to stigmatise, effect them further. This should be about kids first, not the rights of straight/gay others. Oh come on mellie....there is NO fundamental biological right to have parents of different genders.... I'm not sure 'right' is the correct term, but I guess It's impossible for anyone other than a man and a women to produce children for a reason.... Tell mellie that, it's his/her term... And it's 'impossible' for some hetero couples to have children too.....THAT is the whole point to adoption... NO, the whole point to adoption is to give a home to children without one....that's why people ahve been saying it's about the children.  It just happens that infertile couples are the most willing, and suitable to provide this home, as everything is there, except for some physical defect which precludes them from conceiving naturally.   Of course, if gays were willing to admit that their sexuality is a defect, they might fit into this category....but they refuse....so tough.

Yes wesley...exactly...
The point to adoption is give homes to children who need a home....and since the idea is to find homes for the children....it doesn't matter whether the 'parents' have other children, or don't have children, or even CAN'T have children....

So why differentiate between 'can't have children' because the man or woman is sterile...and 'can't have children' because it's 2 men or 2 women???

Neither group (sterile hetero couple, or same-sex couple) can have kids of their own...so they are BOTH equally valid (after the usual checks) to adopt a child....

So, what happened in the New South Wales Parliament - today - on this issue?

Does NSW recognise same sex relationships yet?  Can a person in a same sex relationship leave their property in their Will to their partner without having to fight the Courts?

Besides, there are very few babies up for adoption these days anyhow. Unmarried teenagers now (with the help of the Federal Government) raise them as single parents or their parents take on that role.

Where are all these adoptive babies coming from for same sex partners to adopt? Overseas?

... wrote on Sep 1^st, 2010 at 4:11pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Sep 1st, 2010 at 4:07pm: ... wrote on Sep 1st, 2010 at 4:02pm: Well, If something should happen to my wife and I, I wouldn't want my children to go to a gay couple. Simple as that. Why not?? Would you rather your kids went to a disfunctional family, where the husband spent all his time at the pub, talking footy...and the wife spent all her time on the couch, watching Jerry Springer and Oprah... And the hubby came home at 9pm and slapped his wife around because the house work wasn't done and there was no dinner on the table.....and then the wife took out HER frustrations on the 'adopted' kids????? Oh stop it.  according to the artcile there are '30 or 40' children available for adoption in an average year.....you don't think there are 30 or 40 decent heterosexual couples out there?

And??? isn't it better to have a pool of 60 or 80 decent couples to choose from, for the 30 or 40 children who need adoption, rather than just rely on '30 or 40 decent heterosexual couples'????

The bigger the pool of prospective parents...the better the chance of finding good homes for the children..

Quote:

So why differentiate between 'can't have children' because the man or woman is sterile...and 'can't have children' because it's 2 men or 2 women??? Neither group (sterile hetero couple, or same-sex couple) can have kids of their own...so they are BOTH equally valid (after the usual checks) to adopt a child....

No, not equal, because a man, or a woman, are more than just their reproductive organs.  A woman brings something that no man, no matter how fruity, can, and vice versa.

BTW, folks: there are a significant number of Aussie kids who are currently living with same-sex parents, who lack the legal protections (that their biological parent/s would want them to have) to remain under the care of their non-biological parent in the event of the death or severe incapacity of their biological parent/s...

... wrote on Sep 1^st, 2010 at 4:40pm:

Quote: So why differentiate between 'can't have children' because the man or woman is sterile...and 'can't have children' because it's 2 men or 2 women??? Neither group (sterile hetero couple, or same-sex couple) can have kids of their own...so they are BOTH equally valid (after the usual checks) to adopt a child.... No, not equal, because a man, or a woman, are more than just their reproductive organs.  A woman brings something that no man, no matter how fruity, can, and vice versa.

Oh, so you favour lesbian couples adopting, more than gay male couples adopting???

Quote:

And??? isn't it better to have a pool of 60 or 80 decent couples to choose from, for the 30 or 40 children who need adoption, rather than just rely on '30 or 40 decent heterosexual couples'???? The bigger the pool of prospective parents...the better the chance of finding good homes for the children..

Despite the inordinate amount of sooking they do, gays are still a very small minority.  they aren't going to significantly increase the size of the pool.  Instead of 1000 couples to one adoptee, it'd be 1001.  

gizmo_2655 wrote on Sep 1^st, 2010 at 4:41pm:

... wrote on Sep 1st, 2010 at 4:40pm: Quote: So why differentiate between 'can't have children' because the man or woman is sterile...and 'can't have children' because it's 2 men or 2 women??? Neither group (sterile hetero couple, or same-sex couple) can have kids of their own...so they are BOTH equally valid (after the usual checks) to adopt a child.... No, not equal, because a man, or a woman, are more than just their reproductive organs.  A woman brings something that no man, no matter how fruity, can, and vice versa. Oh, so you favour lesbian couples adopting, more than gay male couples adopting???

No.  I thought the inclusion of 'vice versa' implied that only a man and a woman give balance, not a bulldyke and a lipstick lesbian or a man and his sissy boyfriend.

Equitist wrote on Sep 1^st, 2010 at 4:41pm:

BTW, folks: there are is a significant number of Aussie kids who are currently living with same-sex parents, who lack the legal protections (that their biological parent/s would want them to have) to remain under the care of their non-biological parent in the event of the death or severe incapacity of their biological parent/s...

Do you have a link for those stats?

... wrote on Sep 1^st, 2010 at 4:45pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Sep 1st, 2010 at 4:41pm: ... wrote on Sep 1st, 2010 at 4:40pm: Quote: So why differentiate between 'can't have children' because the man or woman is sterile...and 'can't have children' because it's 2 men or 2 women??? Neither group (sterile hetero couple, or same-sex couple) can have kids of their own...so they are BOTH equally valid (after the usual checks) to adopt a child.... No, not equal, because a man, or a woman, are more than just their reproductive organs.  A woman brings something that no man, no matter how fruity, can, and vice versa. Oh, so you favour lesbian couples adopting, more than gay male couples adopting??? No.  I thought the inclusion of 'vice versa' implied that only a man and a woman give balance, not a bulldyke and a lipstick lesbian or a man and his sissy boyfriend.

Ahh I see...so under your 'religious preferences' it's better that an abusive and violent heterosexual couple adopt, abuse and batter a child, rather than that child being adopted by a loving and caring homosexual couple???

Right, ok....got it...

It's far better that the child be molested, beaten and tortured.....providing the child is molested, beaten and tortured by a 'straight' couple.....Than for the child to be loved, nurtured and cared for by a 'gay' couple...

If a mother or father of under 18 children dies or leaves the marital home - I think it in the best interest of the children that they be removed from a dysfunctional, single parent household - and fostered or adopted into a normal "Mum & Dad" scenario

Quote:

Ahh I see...so under your 'religious preferences' it's better that an abusive and violent heterosexual couple adopt, abuse and batter a child, rather than that child being adopted by a loving and caring homosexual couple??? Right, ok....got it... It's far better that the child be molested, beaten and tortured.....providing the child is molested, beaten and tortured by a 'straight' couple.....Than for the child to be loved, nurtured and cared for by a 'gay' couple...

How ridiculous Gizmo.  Your credibility has just sunk below zero.

... wrote on Sep 1^st, 2010 at 5:04pm:

Quote: Ahh I see...so under your 'religious preferences' it's better that an abusive and violent heterosexual couple adopt, abuse and batter a child, rather than that child being adopted by a loving and caring homosexual couple??? Right, ok....got it... It's far better that the child be molested, beaten and tortured.....providing the child is molested, beaten and tortured by a 'straight' couple.....Than for the child to be loved, nurtured and cared for by a 'gay' couple... How ridiculous Gizmo.  Your credibility has just sunk below zero.

No actually it hasn't...
Your whole argument against same-sex couples adopting children is that they're GAY...

You don't care that a gay couple might be  better people to raise the child....you just object because they're gay

Jaykaye_09 wrote on Sep 1^st, 2010 at 1:35pm:

In an ideal world, man loves woman (or woman loves man), man and woman get married, man and woman have child (maybe 2 or 3), and live happily ever after. The reality, as we're all aware, is somewhat different and that's not to say better or worse. However, we are under no illusions that more often than has been the case before, children are born into unsuitable environments, finding themselves placed in foster care or remaining with unfit biological parents (to name but two of the many different scenarios). Personally, I'd endorse anything that sees a child placed in a loving, caring and responsible environment, REGARDLESS of the sexuality of the parents.

Well said!!!

:)

gizmo_2655 wrote on Sep 1^st, 2010 at 5:12pm:

... wrote on Sep 1st, 2010 at 5:04pm: Quote: Ahh I see...so under your 'religious preferences' it's better that an abusive and violent heterosexual couple adopt, abuse and batter a child, rather than that child being adopted by a loving and caring homosexual couple??? Right, ok....got it... It's far better that the child be molested, beaten and tortured.....providing the child is molested, beaten and tortured by a 'straight' couple.....Than for the child to be loved, nurtured and cared for by a 'gay' couple... How ridiculous Gizmo.  Your credibility has just sunk below zero. No actually it hasn't... Your whole argument against same-sex couples adopting children is that they're GAY... You don't care that a gay couple might be  better people to raise the child....you just object because they're gay

waa waaah waaaaahhhh!

Sook.

mellie wrote on Sep 1^st, 2010 at 4:02pm:

Does a stable government oppose gay-marriage in one breath, though attempt to legislate gay-adoption in another? Ask yourself this. ;D

Just tell me how credible is a government who openly opposes gay-marriage, yet attempts to legislate gay adoption?

Do you suppose this might confuse society, straight & gay a little?


The very definition of adoption is....

1)the act of accepting with approval; favourable reception; "its adoption by society"; "the proposal found wide acceptance"

2) In the case of a child... To take into one's family through legal means and raise as one's own child.

Now with respects to a government and it's flawed hypocrisy, (pre-electoral promise to the gay community) ... how is it they may legislate the gay adoption of children when they openly wont even legislate same-sex marriage?

Gays cant marry, but they may adopt children?


Don't you find this ridiculous, or am I missing something here?

All Labor promised was to 'attempt' to pass this bill.
The truth of the matter is, this was always going to be the extent of such an arrangement.  Was always going to be an un-passable bill though some of the gay community have not quite figured this out yet.

::)

... wrote on Sep 1^st, 2010 at 5:14pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Sep 1st, 2010 at 5:12pm: ... wrote on Sep 1st, 2010 at 5:04pm: Quote: Ahh I see...so under your 'religious preferences' it's better that an abusive and violent heterosexual couple adopt, abuse and batter a child, rather than that child being adopted by a loving and caring homosexual couple??? Right, ok....got it... It's far better that the child be molested, beaten and tortured.....providing the child is molested, beaten and tortured by a 'straight' couple.....Than for the child to be loved, nurtured and cared for by a 'gay' couple... How ridiculous Gizmo.  Your credibility has just sunk below zero. No actually it hasn't... Your whole argument against same-sex couples adopting children is that they're GAY... You don't care that a gay couple might be  better people to raise the child....you just object because they're gay waa waaah waaaaahhhh! Sook.

LOL yeah right...

Go for the whole Westboro idealogy...

Anyone who favours equal and fair treatment for both hetero and gay people...must be a sook...

Just like anyone who favoured equal treatment for blacks and whites in the 50's was a sook...

mellie wrote on Sep 1^st, 2010 at 5:22pm:

mellie wrote on Sep 1st, 2010 at 4:02pm: Does a stable government oppose gay-marriage in one breath, though attempt to legislate gay-adoption in another? Ask yourself this. ;D Just tell me how credible is a government who openly opposes gay-marriage, yet attempts to legislate gay adoption? Do you suppose this might confuse society, straight & gay a little? The very definition of adoption is.... 1)the act of accepting with approval; favourable reception; "its adoption by society"; "the proposal found wide acceptance" 2) In the case of a child... To take into one's family through legal means and raise as one's own child. Now with respects to a government and it's flawed hypocrisy, (pre-electoral promise to the gay community) ... how is it they may legislate the gay adoption of children when they openly wont even legislate same-sex marriage? Gays cant marry, but they may adopt children? Don't you find this ridiculous, or am I missing something here? All Labor promised was to 'attempt' to pass this bill. The truth of the matter is, this was always going to be the extent of such an arrangement.  Was always going to be an un-passable bill though some of the gay community have not quite figured this out yet. ::)

Why is that a problem??? single people can adopt children too...

And everyone who express misgivings about gays adopting must be a baptist nutcase?  

I might be a nutcase, but I'm my own nutcase thank you.

... wrote on Sep 1^st, 2010 at 5:26pm:

And everyone who express misgivings about gays adopting must be a baptist nutcase?   I might be a nutcase, but I'm my own nutcase thank you.

Well you said it...

gizmo_2655 wrote on Sep 1^st, 2010 at 5:29pm:

... wrote on Sep 1st, 2010 at 5:26pm: And everyone who express misgivings about gays adopting must be a baptist nutcase?   I might be a nutcase, but I'm my own nutcase thank you. Well you said it...

Yes.  But at least I'm not a sook.

... wrote on Sep 1^st, 2010 at 5:30pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Sep 1st, 2010 at 5:29pm: ... wrote on Sep 1st, 2010 at 5:26pm: And everyone who express misgivings about gays adopting must be a baptist nutcase?   I might be a nutcase, but I'm my own nutcase thank you. Well you said it... Yes.  But at least I'm not a sook.

Ok. serious question...

Apart from it being against 'God's Law'.....WHAT exactly is wrong with gay couples adopting children???

The thing is, it's clearly hypocritical and contradictory that a government who wont even recognise the marriage of same sex couples should attempt to pass a bill legislating adoption.

Is the act of more marriage deemed more sacred/significant than the act of adopting children?

It's bureaucracy gone mad...and again, at the expense of those who cant defend their own right.

Gays have rights, sure, but so do children, and it's not as though there's a shortage of parents willing to adopt children now is there.

:)

gizmo_2655 wrote on Sep 1^st, 2010 at 5:33pm:

... wrote on Sep 1st, 2010 at 5:30pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Sep 1st, 2010 at 5:29pm: ... wrote on Sep 1st, 2010 at 5:26pm: And everyone who express misgivings about gays adopting must be a baptist nutcase?   I might be a nutcase, but I'm my own nutcase thank you. Well you said it... Yes.  But at least I'm not a sook. Ok. serious question... Apart from it being against 'God's Law'.....WHAT exactly is wrong with gay couples adopting children???

I'm sorry, I don't recall ever mentioning 'gods law'

tarring me as a religious nut again?  I think they call that prejudice.

mellie wrote on Sep 1^st, 2010 at 5:34pm:

The thing is, it's clearly hypocritical and contradictory that a government who wont even recognise the marriage of same sex couples should attempt to pass a bill legislating adoption. Is the act of more marriage deemed more sacred/significant than the act of adopting children? It's bureaucracy gone mad...and again, at the expense of those who cant defend their own right. Gays have rights, sure, but so do children, and it's not as though there's a shortage of parents willing to adopt children now is there. :)

Mellie, you seem to be saying that children in the care of gays and lesbians are in danger of being sexually abused. That assumes that most gays and lesbians are perverted sexual abusers. That's just absurd. Heterosexuals are also know for their sexual abuse of children. So whilst you happily deny gays and lesbians because of the risk of sexual abuse, you will allow children to be put at risk of sexual abuse amongst heterosexuals.

You don't make sense.

... wrote on Sep 1^st, 2010 at 5:35pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Sep 1st, 2010 at 5:33pm: ... wrote on Sep 1st, 2010 at 5:30pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Sep 1st, 2010 at 5:29pm: ... wrote on Sep 1st, 2010 at 5:26pm: And everyone who express misgivings about gays adopting must be a baptist nutcase?   I might be a nutcase, but I'm my own nutcase thank you. Well you said it... Yes.  But at least I'm not a sook. Ok. serious question... Apart from it being against 'God's Law'.....WHAT exactly is wrong with gay couples adopting children??? I'm sorry, I don't recall ever mentioning 'gods law' tarring me as a religious nut again?  I think they call that prejudice.

Habit..lol..
So exactly why do YOU object to gay, or same-sex adoptions???

Quote:

Habit..lol.. So exactly why do YOU object to gay, or same-sex adoptions???

becauuuuuuse, there are MORE than enough good, stable loving homes available right now.  These have the benefit of having a man and a woman, which gives the best chance of a balanced upbringing.  Sorry, but all other factors being equal, two men will never be as good for the child as having male and female parental figures.  

Sappho wrote on Sep 1^st, 2010 at 5:39pm:

mellie wrote on Sep 1st, 2010 at 5:34pm: The thing is, it's clearly hypocritical and contradictory that a government who wont even recognise the marriage of same sex couples should attempt to pass a bill legislating adoption. Is the act of more marriage deemed more sacred/significant than the act of adopting children? It's bureaucracy gone mad...and again, at the expense of those who cant defend their own right. Gays have rights, sure, but so do children, and it's not as though there's a shortage of parents willing to adopt children now is there. :) Mellie, you seem to be saying that children in the care of gays and lesbians are in danger of being sexually abused. That assumes that most gays and lesbians are perverted sexual abusers. That's just absurd. Heterosexuals are also know for their sexual abuse of children. So whilst you happily deny gays and lesbians because of the risk of sexual abuse, you will allow children to be put at risk of sexual abuse amongst heterosexuals. You don't make sense.

No, I'm not saying that at all, and never once have I said this, my major concern is for the psychological well-being of the child, re- how bigoted, ignorant others are, this and will undoubtedly discriminate against these family's and their adopted children having witnessed this first hand myself.  The point I'm making is that you have no chance in hell of having gay-adoption passed, on account of the party trying to pass it wont so much as legitimise same-sex marriage.

Face it, you were given a bum steer, they had no intentions of passing this bill past their own hypocrisy, knowing that this very motion lacks credibility in the face of existing legislation re- gay marriage, of which they openly opposed prior to the election.

Just take a breath and think about it. OK, and think about what I'm saying here.

Because.... If they were even remotely serious about this bill, they would have sort to legalise gay marriage first...not the other way round, adoption/having children being the natural successor to marriage itself...Yes?

Here, I'll put it in short....

Labor never had any intentions of passing either gay adoption or marriage, though needed the gay vote (keep greens voters in sweet)...until after the election.

Now in the wake of their possibly heading back to the polls, it's back up again to motivate greens into voting for what some of them believe will be their ability legally adopt children again this time.

Pretty mean hearted if you ask me, imagine voting for a party you believe in, only to be dropped like a hot potato due to neither bills standing a chance in hell of getting past the senate.

::)...

... wrote on Sep 1^st, 2010 at 5:49pm:

Quote: Habit..lol.. So exactly why do YOU object to gay, or same-sex adoptions??? becauuuuuuse, there are MORE than enough good, stable loving homes available right now.  These have the benefit of having a man and a woman, which gives the best chance of a balanced upbringing.  Sorry, but all other factors being equal, two men will never be as good for the child as having male and female parental figures.

Ok why do you consider 'men and women' better than any other combination???

WHY don't you think that 2 men, or 2 women are as 'good' as a man/women combination??

gizmo_2655 wrote on Sep 1^st, 2010 at 5:57pm:

... wrote on Sep 1st, 2010 at 5:49pm: Quote: Habit..lol.. So exactly why do YOU object to gay, or same-sex adoptions??? becauuuuuuse, there are MORE than enough good, stable loving homes available right now.  These have the benefit of having a man and a woman, which gives the best chance of a balanced upbringing.  Sorry, but all other factors being equal, two men will never be as good for the child as having male and female parental figures.   Ok why do you consider 'men and women' better than any other combination??? WHY don't you think that 2 men, or 2 women are as 'good' as a man/women combination??

Does it really need explaining?

mellie wrote on Sep 1^st, 2010 at 5:56pm:

Sappho wrote on Sep 1st, 2010 at 5:39pm: mellie wrote on Sep 1st, 2010 at 5:34pm: The thing is, it's clearly hypocritical and contradictory that a government who wont even recognise the marriage of same sex couples should attempt to pass a bill legislating adoption. Is the act of more marriage deemed more sacred/significant than the act of adopting children? It's bureaucracy gone mad...and again, at the expense of those who cant defend their own right. Gays have rights, sure, but so do children, and it's not as though there's a shortage of parents willing to adopt children now is there. :) Mellie, you seem to be saying that children in the care of gays and lesbians are in danger of being sexually abused. That assumes that most gays and lesbians are perverted sexual abusers. That's just absurd. Heterosexuals are also know for their sexual abuse of children. So whilst you happily deny gays and lesbians because of the risk of sexual abuse, you will allow children to be put at risk of sexual abuse amongst heterosexuals. You don't make sense. No, I'm not saying that at all, and never once have I said this, my major concern is for the psychological well-being of the child, re- how bigoted, ignorant others are, this and will undoubtedly discriminate against these family's and their adopted children having witnessed this first hand myself.  The point I'm making is that you have no chance in hell of having gay-adoption passed, on account of the party trying to pass it wont so much as legitimise same-sex marriage. Face it, you were given a bum steer, they had no intentions of passing this bill past their own hypocrisy, knowing that this very motion lacks credibility in the face of existing legislation re- gay marriage, of which they openly opposed prior to the election. Just take a breath and think about it. OK, and think about what I'm saying here. Because.... If they were even remotely serious about this bill, they would have sort to legalise gay marriage first...not the other way round, adoption/having children being the natural successor to marriage itself...Yes? Here, I'll put it in short.... Labor never had any intentions of passing either gay adoption or marriage, though needed the gay vote (keep greens voters in sweet)...until after the election. Now in the wake of their possibly heading back to the polls, it's back up again to motivate greens into voting for what some of them believe will be their ability legally adopt children again this time. Pretty mean hearted if you ask me, imagine voting for a party you believe in, only to be dropped like a hot potato due to neither bills standing a chance in hell of getting past the senate. ::)...

Bare in mind, the mastermind behind the Labor party itself is Catholic Bill Shorten, a Jew and a Muslim, all of which have strong religious convictions concerning babies out of wedlock, much less the adoption of children by unmarried persons, outside family.

Bill Shorten himself gun-shot wedded his very-pregnant mistress just weeks before she gave birth, despite both she and himself being married to other people when they conceived.

See, it was ok, so long as they wedded.

::).. Christians, Jews and Muslims have this in common, all three believe homosexuality is unnatural and perverted, this and blasphemous...along with children being born out of wedlock.

They had no intentions of passing it, was a cruel stab to grab votes, nothing more.

Quote:

Gays have rights, sure, but so do children,

lmao, how many people actually believe that?
Not bloody many if all the religious people who shove their phoney baloney ideology down their kids throats from the moment they are born are anything to gauge it by.

... wrote on Sep 1^st, 2010 at 5:59pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Sep 1st, 2010 at 5:57pm: ... wrote on Sep 1st, 2010 at 5:49pm: Quote: Habit..lol.. So exactly why do YOU object to gay, or same-sex adoptions??? becauuuuuuse, there are MORE than enough good, stable loving homes available right now.  These have the benefit of having a man and a woman, which gives the best chance of a balanced upbringing.  Sorry, but all other factors being equal, two men will never be as good for the child as having male and female parental figures.   Ok why do you consider 'men and women' better than any other combination??? WHY don't you think that 2 men, or 2 women are as 'good' as a man/women combination?? Does it really need explaining?

YES it does need explaining, by any concept OTHER than a religious one...

gizmo_2655 wrote on Sep 1^st, 2010 at 6:14pm:

... wrote on Sep 1st, 2010 at 5:59pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Sep 1st, 2010 at 5:57pm: ... wrote on Sep 1st, 2010 at 5:49pm: Quote: Habit..lol.. So exactly why do YOU object to gay, or same-sex adoptions??? becauuuuuuse, there are MORE than enough good, stable loving homes available right now.  These have the benefit of having a man and a woman, which gives the best chance of a balanced upbringing.  Sorry, but all other factors being equal, two men will never be as good for the child as having male and female parental figures.   Ok why do you consider 'men and women' better than any other combination??? WHY don't you think that 2 men, or 2 women are as 'good' as a man/women combination?? Does it really need explaining? YES it does need explaining, by any concept OTHER than a religious one...

I figure there's a reason why a man and a woman are the only possible combination to make children....evolution has an uncanny habit of finding the best combinations.  It's just my belief, but let's be honest here, it's just common sense innit?  Something which is sadly lacking in the PC age.

mozzaok wrote on Sep 1^st, 2010 at 6:12pm:

Quote: Gays have rights, sure, but so do children, lmao, how many people actually believe that? Not bloody many if all the religious people who shove their phoney baloney ideology down their kids throats from the moment they are born are anything to gauge it by.

I agree with you on this Moz, which is why it's so hypocritical, it's hysterical.

But tragic all the same... :-/

... wrote on Sep 1^st, 2010 at 6:20pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Sep 1st, 2010 at 6:14pm: ... wrote on Sep 1st, 2010 at 5:59pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Sep 1st, 2010 at 5:57pm: ... wrote on Sep 1st, 2010 at 5:49pm: Quote: Habit..lol.. So exactly why do YOU object to gay, or same-sex adoptions??? becauuuuuuse, there are MORE than enough good, stable loving homes available right now.  These have the benefit of having a man and a woman, which gives the best chance of a balanced upbringing.  Sorry, but all other factors being equal, two men will never be as good for the child as having male and female parental figures.   Ok why do you consider 'men and women' better than any other combination??? WHY don't you think that 2 men, or 2 women are as 'good' as a man/women combination?? Does it really need explaining? YES it does need explaining, by any concept OTHER than a religious one... I figure there's a reason why a man and a woman are the only possible combination to make children....evolution has an uncanny habit of finding the best combinations.  It's just my belief, but let's be honest here, it's just common sense innit?  Something which is sadly lacking in the PC age.

Yeah ok...but what is the reason 'against'  a non-man/woman couple being acceptable to RAISE children....not evolutionarily equipped to 'HAVE' children....just able to raise children...

I support any couple in a loving stable relationship adopting children. Gay, straight, bisexual.. it makes no difference  :)

adelcrow wrote on Sep 1^st, 2010 at 6:33pm:

I support any couple in a loving stable relationship adopting children. Gay, straight, bisexual.. it makes no difference  :)

Well, pity Labor don't, at least Liberal were upfront about their views on the matter....but if you prefer being pre-electoral pillow-talked, then hey, by all means.
:)

Quote:

Well, pity Labor don't, at least Liberal were upfront about their views on the matter....but if you prefer being pre-electoral pillow-talked, then hey, by all means.

What on earth are you on about?
The debate only started 90 minutes ago and the vote isn't expected until late tonight.

OK.  I have a question.  How many of you arguing about this subject are gay or lesbian who want to adopt children?

Unless you have an actual interest in same-sex adoption, how the bloody hell do you know how it affects those involved.  Arguing for argument sake is rather infantile.  Grow up!

Yog wrote on Sep 1^st, 2010 at 7:06pm:

OK.  I have a question.  How many of you arguing about this subject are gay or lesbian who want to adopt children? Unless you have an actual interest in same-sex adoption, how the bloody hell do you know how it affects those involved.  Arguing for argument sake is rather infantile.  Grow up!

I am gay, not in a relationship, and intend to have IVF to realise my dream of being a parent.
No one, and I mean no one, has the right to simply ASSUME that someone would make a poor parent simply because of their orientation.

Yog wrote on Sep 1^st, 2010 at 7:06pm:

OK.  I have a question.  How many of you arguing about this subject are gay or lesbian who want to adopt children? Unless you have an actual interest in same-sex adoption, how the bloody hell do you know how it affects those involved.  Arguing for argument sake is rather infantile.  Grow up!

Spitting your dummy at people with opposing views to yours, doesn`t do your credibility, or your cause any good.

Life_goes_on wrote on Sep 1^st, 2010 at 7:04pm:

Quote: Well, pity Labor don't, at least Liberal were upfront about their views on the matter....but if you prefer being pre-electoral pillow-talked, then hey, by all means. What on earth are you on about? The debate only started 90 minutes ago and the vote isn't expected until late tonight.

ahahhah, I brought the bill here weeks ago, go back through the threads.

You're a little slooooow.

Probably all the dioxin in the food/water supply, you get that.

8-)

aussiefree2ride wrote on Sep 1^st, 2010 at 7:17pm:

Yog wrote on Sep 1st, 2010 at 7:06pm: OK.  I have a question.  How many of you arguing about this subject are gay or lesbian who want to adopt children? Unless you have an actual interest in same-sex adoption, how the bloody hell do you know how it affects those involved.  Arguing for argument sake is rather infantile.  Grow up! Spitting your dummy at people with opposing views to yours, doesn`t do your credibility, or your cause any good.

I don't think that is his point. I believe he is peeved off at those who he believes don't know what they are talking about.

Assuming something doesn't make a good argument - showing proof that your argument is correct would be something that would be valued.

Vanessa wrote on Sep 1^st, 2010 at 7:15pm:

Yog wrote on Sep 1st, 2010 at 7:06pm: OK.  I have a question.  How many of you arguing about this subject are gay or lesbian who want to adopt children? Unless you have an actual interest in same-sex adoption, how the bloody hell do you know how it affects those involved.  Arguing for argument sake is rather infantile.  Grow up! I am gay, not in a relationship, and intend to have IVF to realise my dream of being a parent. No one, and I mean no one, has the right to simply ASSUME that someone would make a poor parent simply because of their orientation.

Vanessa, perhaps you should take note of the hint that nature is trying to give you?

aussiefree2ride wrote on Sep 1^st, 2010 at 7:21pm:

Vanessa wrote on Sep 1st, 2010 at 7:15pm: Yog wrote on Sep 1st, 2010 at 7:06pm: OK.  I have a question.  How many of you arguing about this subject are gay or lesbian who want to adopt children? Unless you have an actual interest in same-sex adoption, how the bloody hell do you know how it affects those involved.  Arguing for argument sake is rather infantile.  Grow up! I am gay, not in a relationship, and intend to have IVF to realise my dream of being a parent. No one, and I mean no one, has the right to simply ASSUME that someone would make a poor parent simply because of their orientation. Vanessa, perhaps you should take note of the hint that nature is trying to give you?

There are straight couples out there who cannot conceive and they use IVF - are they ignoring the hint that nature has given them?

Vanessa wrote on Sep 1^st, 2010 at 7:19pm:

aussiefree2ride wrote on Sep 1st, 2010 at 7:17pm: Yog wrote on Sep 1st, 2010 at 7:06pm: OK.  I have a question.  How many of you arguing about this subject are gay or lesbian who want to adopt children? Unless you have an actual interest in same-sex adoption, how the bloody hell do you know how it affects those involved.  Arguing for argument sake is rather infantile.  Grow up! Spitting your dummy at people with opposing views to yours, doesn`t do your credibility, or your cause any good. I don't think that is his point. I believe he is peeved off at those who he believes don't know what they are talking about. Assuming something doesn't make a good argument - showing proof that your argument is correct would be something that would be valued.

Vanessa, he begins with "Unless you have an actual interest in same-sex adoption", which is actually saying "Unless are gay or lesbian, you can`t have an opinion interest in same-sex adoption".

I also note his lack of proof or supporting documentation, which by his own standards place his own post at the bottom of the credability ladder.

Ultimately, the Jokes on those who supported a Labor party, who truly thought they were serious about legislating ANYTHING to their advantage.

.... Such a sad irony, and when they say, ignorance is bliss.... you go and support the never-ever bill that was never ever going to happen.

Naturally  8-)

I am not sure I can be more against something than this.

It is cruel, it does not take into account the child and it sets them up for a life of ridicule.

Adoption should always be in the interests of the child.

It should not be to satisfy the urges of a couple of shirt lifters trying to be normal and play happy families.

Vanessa wrote on Sep 1^st, 2010 at 7:22pm:

aussiefree2ride wrote on Sep 1st, 2010 at 7:21pm: Vanessa wrote on Sep 1st, 2010 at 7:15pm: Yog wrote on Sep 1st, 2010 at 7:06pm: OK.  I have a question.  How many of you arguing about this subject are gay or lesbian who want to adopt children? Unless you have an actual interest in same-sex adoption, how the bloody hell do you know how it affects those involved.  Arguing for argument sake is rather infantile.  Grow up! I am gay, not in a relationship, and intend to have IVF to realise my dream of being a parent. No one, and I mean no one, has the right to simply ASSUME that someone would make a poor parent simply because of their orientation. Vanessa, perhaps you should take note of the hint that nature is trying to give you? There are straight couples out there who cannot conceive and they use IVF - are they ignoring the hint that nature has given them?

If an octopus has an accident and loses four of it`s legs, would you call it a horse?

aussiefree2ride wrote on Sep 1^st, 2010 at 7:26pm:

Vanessa wrote on Sep 1st, 2010 at 7:19pm: aussiefree2ride wrote on Sep 1st, 2010 at 7:17pm: Yog wrote on Sep 1st, 2010 at 7:06pm: OK.  I have a question.  How many of you arguing about this subject are gay or lesbian who want to adopt children? Unless you have an actual interest in same-sex adoption, how the bloody hell do you know how it affects those involved.  Arguing for argument sake is rather infantile.  Grow up! Spitting your dummy at people with opposing views to yours, doesn`t do your credibility, or your cause any good. I don't think that is his point. I believe he is peeved off at those who he believes don't know what they are talking about. Assuming something doesn't make a good argument - showing proof that your argument is correct would be something that would be valued. Vanessa, he begins with "Unless you have an actual interest in same-sex adoption", which is actually saying "Unless are gay or lesbian, you can`t have an opinion interest in same-sex adoption". I also note his lack of proof or supporting documentation, which by his own standards place his own post at the bottom of the credability ladder.

I don't care if you are gay or not, you can have an opinion - but I like to hear proper reasons for peoples opposition, not just 'Its wrong and they cant adopt kids' because that's not a very good argument.

These are the facts:

There are very good straight parents out there
There are very poor straight parents out there
There are very good gay parents out there
There are very poor gay parents out there.

No parent is worse than another, and no one should be presumed to be a bad parent - especially when they haven't been given a chance to prove their skills as a parent.

Allow gays to become parents, leave it a few years then see how well they are doing - only then would you have something legit to argue.

aussiefree2ride wrote on Sep 1^st, 2010 at 7:28pm:

Vanessa wrote on Sep 1st, 2010 at 7:22pm: aussiefree2ride wrote on Sep 1st, 2010 at 7:21pm: Vanessa wrote on Sep 1st, 2010 at 7:15pm: Yog wrote on Sep 1st, 2010 at 7:06pm: OK.  I have a question.  How many of you arguing about this subject are gay or lesbian who want to adopt children? Unless you have an actual interest in same-sex adoption, how the bloody hell do you know how it affects those involved.  Arguing for argument sake is rather infantile.  Grow up! I am gay, not in a relationship, and intend to have IVF to realise my dream of being a parent. No one, and I mean no one, has the right to simply ASSUME that someone would make a poor parent simply because of their orientation. Vanessa, perhaps you should take note of the hint that nature is trying to give you? There are straight couples out there who cannot conceive and they use IVF - are they ignoring the hint that nature has given them? If an octopus has an accident and loses four of it`s legs, would you call it a horse?

No more than you would call a single scrubber mother having 8 babies by IVF living off welfare an octapussy... :P

aussiefree2ride wrote on Sep 1^st, 2010 at 7:28pm:

Vanessa wrote on Sep 1st, 2010 at 7:22pm: aussiefree2ride wrote on Sep 1st, 2010 at 7:21pm: Vanessa wrote on Sep 1st, 2010 at 7:15pm: Yog wrote on Sep 1st, 2010 at 7:06pm: OK.  I have a question.  How many of you arguing about this subject are gay or lesbian who want to adopt children? Unless you have an actual interest in same-sex adoption, how the bloody hell do you know how it affects those involved.  Arguing for argument sake is rather infantile.  Grow up! I am gay, not in a relationship, and intend to have IVF to realise my dream of being a parent. No one, and I mean no one, has the right to simply ASSUME that someone would make a poor parent simply because of their orientation. Vanessa, perhaps you should take note of the hint that nature is trying to give you? There are straight couples out there who cannot conceive and they use IVF - are they ignoring the hint that nature has given them? If an octopus has an accident and loses four of it`s legs, would you call it a horse?

Completely irrelevant.

mellie wrote on Sep 1^st, 2010 at 7:33pm:

aussiefree2ride wrote on Sep 1st, 2010 at 7:28pm: Vanessa wrote on Sep 1st, 2010 at 7:22pm: aussiefree2ride wrote on Sep 1st, 2010 at 7:21pm: Vanessa wrote on Sep 1st, 2010 at 7:15pm: Yog wrote on Sep 1st, 2010 at 7:06pm: OK.  I have a question.  How many of you arguing about this subject are gay or lesbian who want to adopt children? Unless you have an actual interest in same-sex adoption, how the bloody hell do you know how it affects those involved.  Arguing for argument sake is rather infantile.  Grow up! I am gay, not in a relationship, and intend to have IVF to realise my dream of being a parent. No one, and I mean no one, has the right to simply ASSUME that someone would make a poor parent simply because of their orientation. Vanessa, perhaps you should take note of the hint that nature is trying to give you? There are straight couples out there who cannot conceive and they use IVF - are they ignoring the hint that nature has given them? If an octopus has an accident and loses four of it`s legs, would you call it a horse? No more than you would call a single scrubber mother having 8 babies by IVF living off welfare an octapussy... :P

Thank God that crap only happens in America!


...........hahaha at the profanity filter!

A child should have both male and female, in house positive influence in their daily lives.  There are many cases in heterosexual relationships, but it should never be planed to deprive children of balance.  

aussiefree2ride wrote on Sep 1^st, 2010 at 7:35pm:

A child should have both male and female, in house positive influence in their daily lives.  There are many cases in heterosexual relationships, but it should never be planed to deprive children of balance.

Well said that man!!!!

aussiefree2ride wrote on Sep 1^st, 2010 at 7:35pm:

A child should have both male and female, in house positive influence in their daily lives.  There are many cases in heterosexual relationships, but it should never be planed to deprive children of balance.

What about single parents?

Quote:

What about single parents?

Obviously they should be taken to the nearest footy field and clubbed to death with a cricket bat in front of their childen and the cheering crowds of rednecks that fill the stands.

Vanessa wrote on Sep 1^st, 2010 at 7:37pm:

aussiefree2ride wrote on Sep 1st, 2010 at 7:35pm: A child should have both male and female, in house positive influence in their daily lives.  There are many cases in heterosexual relationships, but it should never be planed to deprive children of balance.   What about single parents?

Sometimes single parents can't be helped.
There are some tragic stories.

However single parents of shyte teenage bogan mums? Whole new ball game.

Vanessa wrote on Sep 1^st, 2010 at 7:34pm:

aussiefree2ride wrote on Sep 1st, 2010 at 7:28pm: Vanessa wrote on Sep 1st, 2010 at 7:22pm: aussiefree2ride wrote on Sep 1st, 2010 at 7:21pm: Vanessa wrote on Sep 1st, 2010 at 7:15pm: Yog wrote on Sep 1st, 2010 at 7:06pm: OK.  I have a question.  How many of you arguing about this subject are gay or lesbian who want to adopt children? Unless you have an actual interest in same-sex adoption, how the bloody hell do you know how it affects those involved.  Arguing for argument sake is rather infantile.  Grow up! I am gay, not in a relationship, and intend to have IVF to realise my dream of being a parent. No one, and I mean no one, has the right to simply ASSUME that someone would make a poor parent simply because of their orientation. Vanessa, perhaps you should take note of the hint that nature is trying to give you? There are straight couples out there who cannot conceive and they use IVF - are they ignoring the hint that nature has given them? If an octopus has an accident and loses four of it`s legs, would you call it a horse? Completely irrelevant.

Not irrelevant at at all, IVF between a natural breeding pair only overcomes accident or disease, nothing more.  

I actually think IVF is stupid and irrelevant in our overpopulated world, but that`s another story. Vanessa, I don`t want to offend you, nothing could be further from my intention.  This is just my honest opinion.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 1^st, 2010 at 7:41pm:

Vanessa wrote on Sep 1st, 2010 at 7:37pm: aussiefree2ride wrote on Sep 1st, 2010 at 7:35pm: A child should have both male and female, in house positive influence in their daily lives.  There are many cases in heterosexual relationships, but it should never be planed to deprive children of balance.   What about single parents? Sometimes single parents can't be helped. There are some tragic stories. However single parents of shyte teenage bogan mums? Whole new ball game.

What about single mums by choice? Access to IVF is allowed for single women and lesbians, you know - it is actually legal for a lesbian woman to have IVF then go home to raise the child with her partner.

Vanessa wrote on Sep 1^st, 2010 at 7:31pm:

I don't care if you are gay or not, you can have an opinion - but I like to hear proper reasons for peoples opposition, not just 'Its wrong and they cant adopt kids' because that's not a very good argument. These are the facts: There are very good straight parents out there There are very poor straight parents out there There are very good gay parents out there There are very poor gay parents out there. No parent is worse than another, and no one should be presumed to be a bad parent - especially when they haven't been given a chance to prove their skills as a parent. Allow gays to become parents, leave it a few years then see how well they are doing - only then would you have something legit to argue.

Vanessa for the next GG. :o  You have really, truly thought this out, Vanessa?

It has NOTHING to do with a person's sexuality. It is about ADOPTION.

How many children have you had, Vanessa?  Who looks after them? Would you give one of yours away to somebody who needed a baby more than you do?

Look at the problem from outside the square.

How many children come up for adoption, annually?  Who wants a 5+ year old? Most people would want a new-born. How many of those are there that are available for adoption?

I would suggest that those couples who go through IVF will end up thoroughly disappointed.

Why can't people just realise that they left their run too late and they will remain childless?  It WAS the CAREER that stopped them trying to have kids while they were young (and in love) wasn't it?

aussiefree2ride wrote on Sep 1^st, 2010 at 7:42pm:

Vanessa wrote on Sep 1st, 2010 at 7:34pm: aussiefree2ride wrote on Sep 1st, 2010 at 7:28pm: Vanessa wrote on Sep 1st, 2010 at 7:22pm: aussiefree2ride wrote on Sep 1st, 2010 at 7:21pm: Vanessa wrote on Sep 1st, 2010 at 7:15pm: Yog wrote on Sep 1st, 2010 at 7:06pm: OK.  I have a question.  How many of you arguing about this subject are gay or lesbian who want to adopt children? Unless you have an actual interest in same-sex adoption, how the bloody hell do you know how it affects those involved.  Arguing for argument sake is rather infantile.  Grow up! I am gay, not in a relationship, and intend to have IVF to realise my dream of being a parent. No one, and I mean no one, has the right to simply ASSUME that someone would make a poor parent simply because of their orientation. Vanessa, perhaps you should take note of the hint that nature is trying to give you? There are straight couples out there who cannot conceive and they use IVF - are they ignoring the hint that nature has given them? If an octopus has an accident and loses four of it`s legs, would you call it a horse? Completely irrelevant. Not irrelevant at at all, IVF between a natural breeding pair only overcomes accident or disease, nothing more.   I actually think IVF is stupid and irrelevant in our overpopulated world, but that`s another story. Vanessa, I don`t want to offend you, nothing could be further from my intention.  This is just my honest opinion.

That's fine, no offence taken.

I think IVF is amazing. It has enabled so many people to become parents, and nothing could be better than that.
The problem is if it is abused - people churning out IVF babies to collect the baby bonus - although I hope Aussies are smarter than that.

And while expensive, I'll be using it one day, and hopefully, I can realise my life long dream of becoming a mother. And no one should assume I would be a poor mother, because I aim to be the best mother I could ever be.

Vanessa wrote on Sep 1^st, 2010 at 7:44pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 1st, 2010 at 7:41pm: Vanessa wrote on Sep 1st, 2010 at 7:37pm: aussiefree2ride wrote on Sep 1st, 2010 at 7:35pm: A child should have both male and female, in house positive influence in their daily lives.  There are many cases in heterosexual relationships, but it should never be planed to deprive children of balance.   What about single parents? Sometimes single parents can't be helped. There are some tragic stories. However single parents of shyte teenage bogan mums? Whole new ball game. What about single mums by choice? Access to IVF is allowed for single women and lesbians, you know - it is actually legal for a lesbian woman to have IVF then go home to raise the child with her partner.

It's cheaper when done in Thailand....

Vanessa wrote on Sep 1^st, 2010 at 7:44pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 1st, 2010 at 7:41pm: Vanessa wrote on Sep 1st, 2010 at 7:37pm: aussiefree2ride wrote on Sep 1st, 2010 at 7:35pm: A child should have both male and female, in house positive influence in their daily lives.  There are many cases in heterosexual relationships, but it should never be planed to deprive children of balance.   What about single parents? Sometimes single parents can't be helped. There are some tragic stories. However single parents of shyte teenage bogan mums? Whole new ball game. What about single mums by choice? Access to IVF is allowed for single women and lesbians, you know - it is actually legal for a lesbian woman to have IVF then go home to raise the child with her partner.

I don't agree with it.
IVF should be for a stable married couple in my opinion.

I grew up in a family of a stable background and I have no doubt it is because of that I have become the person I am today.

Vanessa wrote on Sep 1^st, 2010 at 7:37pm:

aussiefree2ride wrote on Sep 1st, 2010 at 7:35pm: A child should have both male and female, in house positive influence in their daily lives.  There are many cases in heterosexual relationships, but it should never be planed to deprive children of balance.   What about single parents?

When a child is deprived of the love of both parents in their daily lives it is always cruel ad highly damaging to the child.  Sometimes it can`t be helped, but to plan for this result is selfish and callous

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 1^st, 2010 at 7:46pm:

Vanessa wrote on Sep 1st, 2010 at 7:44pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 1st, 2010 at 7:41pm: Vanessa wrote on Sep 1st, 2010 at 7:37pm: aussiefree2ride wrote on Sep 1st, 2010 at 7:35pm: A child should have both male and female, in house positive influence in their daily lives.  There are many cases in heterosexual relationships, but it should never be planed to deprive children of balance.   What about single parents? Sometimes single parents can't be helped. There are some tragic stories. However single parents of shyte teenage bogan mums? Whole new ball game. What about single mums by choice? Access to IVF is allowed for single women and lesbians, you know - it is actually legal for a lesbian woman to have IVF then go home to raise the child with her partner. I don't agree with it. IVF should be for a stable married couple in my opinion. I grew up in a family of a stable background and I have no doubt it is because of that I have become the person I am today.

Agreed!

:)

Yog wrote on Sep 1^st, 2010 at 7:45pm:

Vanessa wrote on Sep 1st, 2010 at 7:31pm: I don't care if you are gay or not, you can have an opinion - but I like to hear proper reasons for peoples opposition, not just 'Its wrong and they cant adopt kids' because that's not a very good argument. These are the facts: There are very good straight parents out there There are very poor straight parents out there There are very good gay parents out there There are very poor gay parents out there. No parent is worse than another, and no one should be presumed to be a bad parent - especially when they haven't been given a chance to prove their skills as a parent. Allow gays to become parents, leave it a few years then see how well they are doing - only then would you have something legit to argue. Vanessa for the next GG. :o  You have really, truly thought this out, Vanessa? It has NOTHING to do with a person's sexuality. It is about ADOPTION. How many children have you had, Vanessa?  Who looks after them? Would you give one of yours away to somebody who needed a baby more than you do? Look at the problem from outside the square. How many children come up for adoption, annually?  Who wants a 5+ year old? Most people would want a new-born. How many of those are there that are available for adoption? I would suggest that those couples who go through IVF will end up thoroughly disappointed. Why can't people just realise that they left their run too late and they will remain childless?  It WAS the CAREER that stopped them trying to have kids while they were young (and in love) wasn't it?

Sometimes it is a career that prevents a woman from having a child - but that is her own fault. IVF is usually helpful for those who have tried for years to have a baby but couldn't. It is the last resort, and while it isn't always successful, it has brought joy into so many peoples lives - as it results in a baby.

Adoption is a problem, because yes, most people want a newborn, which is sad, as there would be many five year olds out there desperate for a mother and/or father, and they are ignored for a cute and cuddly newborn.

aussiefree2ride wrote on Sep 1^st, 2010 at 7:47pm:

Vanessa wrote on Sep 1st, 2010 at 7:37pm: aussiefree2ride wrote on Sep 1st, 2010 at 7:35pm: A child should have both male and female, in house positive influence in their daily lives.  There are many cases in heterosexual relationships, but it should never be planed to deprive children of balance.   What about single parents? When a child is deprived of the love of both parents in their daily lives it is always cruel ad highly damaging to the child.  Sometimes it can`t be helped, but to plan for this result is selfish and callous

Parents can get divorced - then it is the parents themselves who are denying their own children the right to have two parents living together.

I don't know many single parents - but I haven't come across any evidence to suggest they are not good parents. I imagine they are very good parents. It depends on the person.

aussiefree2ride wrote on Sep 1^st, 2010 at 7:47pm:

Vanessa wrote on Sep 1st, 2010 at 7:37pm: aussiefree2ride wrote on Sep 1st, 2010 at 7:35pm: A child should have both male and female, in house positive influence in their daily lives.  There are many cases in heterosexual relationships, but it should never be planed to deprive children of balance.   What about single parents? When a child is deprived of the love of both parents in their daily lives it is always cruel ad highly damaging to the child.  Sometimes it can`t be helped, but to plan for this result is selfish and callous

Exactly, but they will stress that because heterosexuals can be dysfunctional, this and their family's breakdown also, then it's their right to be equally dysfunctional as the next make-do  family you see.

Not to be outdone by the out-done you see.

8-)

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 1^st, 2010 at 7:46pm:

Vanessa wrote on Sep 1st, 2010 at 7:44pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 1st, 2010 at 7:41pm: Vanessa wrote on Sep 1st, 2010 at 7:37pm: aussiefree2ride wrote on Sep 1st, 2010 at 7:35pm: A child should have both male and female, in house positive influence in their daily lives.  There are many cases in heterosexual relationships, but it should never be planed to deprive children of balance.   What about single parents? Sometimes single parents can't be helped. There are some tragic stories. However single parents of shyte teenage bogan mums? Whole new ball game. What about single mums by choice? Access to IVF is allowed for single women and lesbians, you know - it is actually legal for a lesbian woman to have IVF then go home to raise the child with her partner. I don't agree with it. IVF should be for a stable married couple in my opinion. I grew up in a family of a stable background and I have no doubt it is because of that I have become the person I am today.

My family is stable, too, and I became the person I am today because of my family. My parents have been married for almost 30 years.
Obviously, I am a lot different to my parents, but my mother is a wonderful mother, and I would love to try to as great a mum as she has been. I don't think I should be denied that.

Related news ........


Tasmania moves to recognise same-sex unions
Updated 10 hours 38 minutes ago

Tasmania's Lower House of Parliament has approved laws recognising same-sex marriages and civil unions registered in other states or countries.

Only three of the 25 Members of the House of Assembly - Liberals Rene Hidding, Michael Ferguson and Jacqui Petrusma - voted against the amendment to the Relationships Act.

Attorney-General Lara Giddings says the changes will remove discrimination for same-sex couples in registered relationships.

"This is really a small step, but a significant and important step for those people who have registered or been through a civil union process elsewhere around the world and want us to recognise that relationship as indeed being in existence," she said.

"This is about removing another level of discrimination which can be held against people who have a significant relationship that has been registered in another jurisdiction but at the moment is not recognised here in Tasmania," she said.


http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/09/01/2999027.htm

Vanessa wrote on Sep 1^st, 2010 at 7:51pm:

My family is stable, too, and I became the person I am today because of my family. My parents have been married for almost 30 years. Obviously, I am a lot different to my parents, but my mother is a wonderful mother, and I would love to try to as great a mum as she has been. I don't think I should be denied that.

Why do you think you would be denied this opportunity?
Because you're single?

Vanessa wrote on Sep 1^st, 2010 at 7:46pm:

aussiefree2ride wrote on Sep 1st, 2010 at 7:42pm: Vanessa wrote on Sep 1st, 2010 at 7:34pm: aussiefree2ride wrote on Sep 1st, 2010 at 7:28pm: Vanessa wrote on Sep 1st, 2010 at 7:22pm: aussiefree2ride wrote on Sep 1st, 2010 at 7:21pm: Vanessa wrote on Sep 1st, 2010 at 7:15pm: Yog wrote on Sep 1st, 2010 at 7:06pm: OK.  I have a question.  How many of you arguing about this subject are gay or lesbian who want to adopt children? Unless you have an actual interest in same-sex adoption, how the bloody hell do you know how it affects those involved.  Arguing for argument sake is rather infantile.  Grow up! I am gay, not in a relationship, and intend to have IVF to realise my dream of being a parent. No one, and I mean no one, has the right to simply ASSUME that someone would make a poor parent simply because of their orientation. Vanessa, perhaps you should take note of the hint that nature is trying to give you? There are straight couples out there who cannot conceive and they use IVF - are they ignoring the hint that nature has given them? If an octopus has an accident and loses four of it`s legs, would you call it a horse? Completely irrelevant. Not irrelevant at at all, IVF between a natural breeding pair only overcomes accident or disease, nothing more.   I actually think IVF is stupid and irrelevant in our overpopulated world, but that`s another story. Vanessa, I don`t want to offend you, nothing could be further from my intention.  This is just my honest opinion. That's fine, no offence taken. I think IVF is amazing. It has enabled so many people to become parents, and nothing could be better than that. The problem is if it is abused - people churning out IVF babies to collect the baby bonus - although I hope Aussies are smarter than that. And while expensive, I'll be using it one day, and hopefully, I can realise my life long dream of becoming a mother. And no one should assume I would be a poor mother, because I aim to be the best mother I could ever be.

I don't care if you`re fat Vanessa, or if your clothes are bad. You can go to sleep at night, you are a good person and you`ll get by...

;)

buzzanddidj wrote on Sep 1^st, 2010 at 7:53pm:

Related news ........ Tasmania moves to recognise same-sex unions Updated 10 hours 38 minutes ago Tasmania's Lower House of Parliament has approved laws recognising same-sex marriages and civil unions registered in other states or countries. Only three of the 25 Members of the House of Assembly - Liberals Rene Hidding, Michael Ferguson and Jacqui Petrusma - voted against the amendment to the Relationships Act. Attorney-General Lara Giddings says the changes will remove discrimination for same-sex couples in registered relationships. "This is really a small step, but a significant and important step for those people who have registered or been through a civil union process elsewhere around the world and want us to recognise that relationship as indeed being in existence," she said. "This is about removing another level of discrimination which can be held against people who have a significant relationship that has been registered in another jurisdiction but at the moment is not recognised here in Tasmania," she said. http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/09/01/2999027.htm

Excellent news. It is shameful that you can be married in one country, then return home and you are not married.

aussiefree2ride wrote on Sep 1^st, 2010 at 7:54pm:

Vanessa wrote on Sep 1st, 2010 at 7:46pm: aussiefree2ride wrote on Sep 1st, 2010 at 7:42pm: Vanessa wrote on Sep 1st, 2010 at 7:34pm: aussiefree2ride wrote on Sep 1st, 2010 at 7:28pm: Vanessa wrote on Sep 1st, 2010 at 7:22pm: aussiefree2ride wrote on Sep 1st, 2010 at 7:21pm: Vanessa wrote on Sep 1st, 2010 at 7:15pm: Yog wrote on Sep 1st, 2010 at 7:06pm: OK.  I have a question.  How many of you arguing about this subject are gay or lesbian who want to adopt children? Unless you have an actual interest in same-sex adoption, how the bloody hell do you know how it affects those involved.  Arguing for argument sake is rather infantile.  Grow up! I am gay, not in a relationship, and intend to have IVF to realise my dream of being a parent. No one, and I mean no one, has the right to simply ASSUME that someone would make a poor parent simply because of their orientation. Vanessa, perhaps you should take note of the hint that nature is trying to give you? There are straight couples out there who cannot conceive and they use IVF - are they ignoring the hint that nature has given them? If an octopus has an accident and loses four of it`s legs, would you call it a horse? Completely irrelevant. Not irrelevant at at all, IVF between a natural breeding pair only overcomes accident or disease, nothing more.   I actually think IVF is stupid and irrelevant in our overpopulated world, but that`s another story. Vanessa, I don`t want to offend you, nothing could be further from my intention.  This is just my honest opinion. That's fine, no offence taken. I think IVF is amazing. It has enabled so many people to become parents, and nothing could be better than that. The problem is if it is abused - people churning out IVF babies to collect the baby bonus - although I hope Aussies are smarter than that. And while expensive, I'll be using it one day, and hopefully, I can realise my life long dream of becoming a mother. And no one should assume I would be a poor mother, because I aim to be the best mother I could ever be. I don't care if you`re fat Vanessa, or if your clothes are bad. You can go to sleep at night, you are a good person and you`ll get by... ;)

Hehe, thank you very much. :)

mellie wrote on Sep 1^st, 2010 at 7:51pm:

aussiefree2ride wrote on Sep 1st, 2010 at 7:47pm: Vanessa wrote on Sep 1st, 2010 at 7:37pm: aussiefree2ride wrote on Sep 1st, 2010 at 7:35pm: A child should have both male and female, in house positive influence in their daily lives.  There are many cases in heterosexual relationships, but it should never be planed to deprive children of balance.   What about single parents? When a child is deprived of the love of both parents in their daily lives it is always cruel ad highly damaging to the child.  Sometimes it can`t be helped, but to plan for this result is selfish and callous Exactly, but they will stress that because heterosexuals can be dysfunctional, this and their family's breakdown also, then it's their right to be equally dysfunctional as the next make-do  family you see. Not to be outdone by the out-done you see. 8-)

Mellie, I could out crazy you, and your entire suburb.   ;D

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 1^st, 2010 at 7:54pm:

Vanessa wrote on Sep 1st, 2010 at 7:51pm: My family is stable, too, and I became the person I am today because of my family. My parents have been married for almost 30 years. Obviously, I am a lot different to my parents, but my mother is a wonderful mother, and I would love to try to as great a mum as she has been. I don't think I should be denied that. Why do you think you would be denied this opportunity? Because you're single?

No. As the law stands, I can turn up as a gay woman or a single woman and I will have access to IVF.
Ideally, it would be better if the baby has a mother and a father. But children live in all different kinds of environments these days. It is somewhat old fashioned to want the childs upbringing to be perfect.

Put it this way. If I were to shack up with a man I didn't love, and had a baby with him - is that good for the child?
Or is it better that I have a child while single?

I know which I would prefer!

Vanessa wrote on Sep 1^st, 2010 at 7:56pm:

Put it this way. If I were to shack up with a man I didn't love, and had a baby with him - is that good for the child? Or is it better that I have a child while single? I know which I would prefer!

If you want my personal opinion, I don't like either option.

I would rather a child grows up in a stable home of a married couple.

I don't like the fad of single parents and I positively detest two people of the same sex having a child.

My view is about what is best for the child, not the parent(s).

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 1^st, 2010 at 7:59pm:

Vanessa wrote on Sep 1st, 2010 at 7:56pm: Put it this way. If I were to shack up with a man I didn't love, and had a baby with him - is that good for the child? Or is it better that I have a child while single? I know which I would prefer! If you want my personal opinion, I don't like either option. I would rather a child grows up in a stable home of a married couple. I don't like the fad of single parents and I positively detest two people of the same sex having a child. My view is about what is best for the child, not the parent(s).

I can understand the wanting what is best for the child - but as same sex couples had not even had the chance to prove themselves as parents, is it fair to assume they would be bad parents?

Where is the harm in letting them try and see what happens? You might be surprised.

What would kids if they saw their "two" Fathers in bed butt slamming each other?
It's terrible.
It shouldn't be allowed.

I agree with Bobby - though he does have a tad crass way of painting the picture.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 1^st, 2010 at 8:03pm:

I agree with Bobby - though he does have a tad crass way of painting the picture.

Sorry Andrei - how else could I have said it?

Vanessa wrote on Sep 1^st, 2010 at 8:01pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 1st, 2010 at 7:59pm: Vanessa wrote on Sep 1st, 2010 at 7:56pm: Put it this way. If I were to shack up with a man I didn't love, and had a baby with him - is that good for the child? Or is it better that I have a child while single? I know which I would prefer! If you want my personal opinion, I don't like either option. I would rather a child grows up in a stable home of a married couple. I don't like the fad of single parents and I positively detest two people of the same sex having a child. My view is about what is best for the child, not the parent(s). I can understand the wanting what is best for the child - but as same sex couples had not even had the chance to prove themselves as parents, is it fair to assume they would be bad parents? Where is the harm in letting them try and see what happens? You might be surprised.

Because there are a number of issues -

Gay people in an open family relationship is a very new concept, it has not been tried or tested for any length of time for stability.

The child will be subject to terrifying bullying.
I grew up at a school where a kid was bashed in the middle of the night because it was suspected he was gay, can you imagine what happens if they have gay parents???

I don't like gay people. I find them immoral and perverse. Sorry but to have these people instilling their values in a child. It just makes me feel quite ill.

I know my views are not politically correct and they are to the Right in nature but I am honest enough to admit it.

Quote:

What would kids if they saw their "two" Fathers in bed butt slamming each other? It's terrible. It shouldn't be allowed.

Or if they saw dad "butt slamming" mum while Uncle Fred feeds her his sausage?

Bobby. wrote on Sep 1^st, 2010 at 8:02pm:

What would kids if they saw their "two" Fathers in bed butt slamming each other? It's terrible. It shouldn't be allowed.

And furthermore, would you run the risk of your own kids attending a sleep-over at a house where this very picture could be brought to life?

Ok, if that's what you're into, I guess....Irrrrk! :P

Life_goes_on wrote on Sep 1^st, 2010 at 8:10pm:

Quote: What would kids if they saw their "two" Fathers in bed butt slamming each other? It's terrible. It shouldn't be allowed. Or if they saw dad "butt slamming" mum while Uncle Fred feeds her his sausage?

Life - you're getting a bit over excited there.   ;D

Quote:

Life - you're getting a bit over excited there.

But I hadn't even got to the bit about the two naked midgets, a doberman called Max and the bucket of rancid butter sitting by the bed.

Life_goes_on wrote on Sep 1^st, 2010 at 8:19pm:

Quote: Life - you're getting a bit over excited there.     But I hadn't even got to the bit about the two naked midgets, a doberman called Max and the bucket of rancid butter sitting by the bed.

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Life_goes_on wrote on Sep 1^st, 2010 at 8:19pm:

Quote: Life - you're getting a bit over excited there.     But I hadn't even got to the bit about the two naked midgets, a doberman called Max and the bucket of rancid butter sitting by the bed.

Do not tempt the GALP!!

aussiefree2ride wrote on Sep 1^st, 2010 at 7:35pm:

A child should have both male and female, in house positive influence in their daily lives.  There are many cases in heterosexual relationships, but it should never be planed to deprive children of balance.

Why??

gizmo_2655 wrote on Sep 1^st, 2010 at 9:25pm:

aussiefree2ride wrote on Sep 1st, 2010 at 7:35pm: A child should have both male and female, in house positive influence in their daily lives.  There are many cases in heterosexual relationships, but it should never be planed to deprive children of balance.   Why??

Because naturally, a child should ideally have both a maternal and paternal parent figure in their lives, this and there's always going to be the 'stigma' and apparent fact that no less than 93% of the country disprove of their familial arrangement, however PC they may try to portray themselves to be.

It's about what's best for the child, they must come first.

mellie wrote on Sep 1^st, 2010 at 9:29pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Sep 1st, 2010 at 9:25pm: aussiefree2ride wrote on Sep 1st, 2010 at 7:35pm: A child should have both male and female, in house positive influence in their daily lives.  There are many cases in heterosexual relationships, but it should never be planed to deprive children of balance.   Why?? Because naturally, a child should ideally have both a maternal and paternal parent figure in their lives, this and there's always going to be the apparent fact that no less than 93% of the country don't approve of their family arrangement, however PC they may try to portray themselves to be.

And 5000 yrs ago (and in various developing countries of today) every man in a tribe/household is a paternal figure, and every woman is a maternal figure....


So in an 'extended' family situation, uncles and grandfathers work just as well as paternal figures, and aunts and grandmothers work as maternal figures....

So a woman/woman parent situation where there is a male housemate or regular male visitor is just the same as a male/female relationship....(and a female housemate/visitor for a male/male parent arrangement)....

Ask any Psychologist, the male( or female) role model doesn't actually need to be a 'parent'.....just someone the child sees regularly

There are thousands of normal children and adults in Australia today, who only saw one of their parents on weekends...and those children/adults have no advervse mental problems as a result of that...

It comes down to our 'current' societies tolerance and acceptance of these unconventional family's social function and status, ultimately it's the kid who stands to suffer most, long after their two mums, or two dads have come to terms with their own sexuality.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 1^st, 2010 at 7:59pm:

Vanessa wrote on Sep 1st, 2010 at 7:56pm: Put it this way. If I were to shack up with a man I didn't love, and had a baby with him - is that good for the child? Or is it better that I have a child while single? I know which I would prefer! If you want my personal opinion, .................

I think I could say with confidence, unless the subject is the latest tax scam, most people don't

Vanessa wrote on Sep 1^st, 2010 at 7:15pm:

Yog wrote on Sep 1st, 2010 at 7:06pm: OK.  I have a question.  How many of you arguing about this subject are gay or lesbian who want to adopt children? Unless you have an actual interest in same-sex adoption, how the bloody hell do you know how it affects those involved.  Arguing for argument sake is rather infantile.  Grow up! I am gay, not in a relationship, and intend to have IVF to realise my dream of being a parent. No one, and I mean no one, has the right to simply ASSUME that someone would make a poor parent simply because of their orientation.

Wow.  I just hope the law or bureaucracy holds you back until you realise just how bad an idea that is.  
It's like you want the end result without going through the necessary steps to get there.  The world doesn't 'owe' you a child just because it is your dream to have one....I might have a dream to be an AFL player, but there are very clear steps I would need to take to get there, just the same as there are steps you need to take to become a parent...it is not everyone's 'right' to be given whatever assistance is required for them to realise their personal dream.

Besides, parenting isn't all fun and games you know, it's bloody hard work with 2 parents, let alone by yourself.  

... wrote on Sep 2^nd, 2010 at 11:24am:

Vanessa wrote on Sep 1st, 2010 at 7:15pm: Yog wrote on Sep 1st, 2010 at 7:06pm: OK.  I have a question.  How many of you arguing about this subject are gay or lesbian who want to adopt children? Unless you have an actual interest in same-sex adoption, how the bloody hell do you know how it affects those involved.  Arguing for argument sake is rather infantile.  Grow up! I am gay, not in a relationship, and intend to have IVF to realise my dream of being a parent. No one, and I mean no one, has the right to simply ASSUME that someone would make a poor parent simply because of their orientation. Wow.  I just hope the law or bureaucracy holds you back until you realise just how bad an idea that is.   It's like you want the end result without going through the necessary steps to get there.  The world doesn't 'owe' you a child just because it is your dream to have one....I might have a dream to be an AFL player, but there are very clear steps I would need to take to get there, just the same as there are steps you need to take to become a parent...it is not everyone's 'right' to be given whatever assistance is required for them to realise their personal dream. Besides, parenting isn't all fun and games you know, it's bloody hard work with 2 parents, let alone by yourself.

The gay community do like to accessorise, and what coukd be more fabulous than a government funded mini-me.

If you can breed 'em and you can feed 'em, you can have 'em. If not too friggen bad.

The New South Wales Opposition Leader Barry O'Farrell has joined the state's Premier in speaking in favour of a bill allowing same-sex couples the right to adopt.

A number of amendments to the state bill have been proposed, one allowing faith-based agencies to be exempt from the anti-discrimination provisions so that they could refuse their services to gay couples.

Another amendment gives the birth parents the right to veto a same-sex adoption.

New South Wales MPs are being allowed a conscience vote.

Mr O'Farrell has previously refused to state his position on the matter, saying he did not want to influence MPs.

But he now says the bill is not about gay rights but the rights of a child.

"Today's bill is not creating a new class of family," he said.

"Same-sex couples with children are a reality of life already.

"This bill simply gives committed couples, regardless of their sexuality who want to adopt a child the equal access to a process which will not treat them equally."

The Nationals Leader Andrew Stoner says he will not support the legislation, believing it is best a child has both a mother and a father.

The bill was introduced by the Independent MP Clover Moore, who says the laws regarding same sex adoption need to catch up with social reality.

Verge wrote on Sep 2^nd, 2010 at 11:33am:

The New South Wales Opposition Leader Barry O'Farrell has joined the state's Premier in speaking in favour of a bill allowing same-sex couples the right to adopt. A number of amendments to the state bill have been proposed, one allowing faith-based agencies to be exempt from the anti-discrimination provisions so that they could refuse their services to gay couples. Another amendment gives the birth parents the right to veto a same-sex adoption. New South Wales MPs are being allowed a conscience vote. Mr O'Farrell has previously refused to state his position on the matter, saying he did not want to influence MPs. But he now says the bill is not about gay rights but the rights of a child. "Today's bill is not creating a new class of family," he said. "Same-sex couples with children are a reality of life already. "This bill simply gives committed couples, regardless of their sexuality who want to adopt a child the equal access to a process which will not treat them equally." The Nationals Leader Andrew Stoner says he will not support the legislation, believing it is best a child has both a mother and a father. The bill was introduced by the Independent MP Clover Moore, who says the laws regarding same sex adoption need to catch up with social reality.

Crikey, good on him - but I reckon that a lot of religious righteous whingers will be pissed off with O'Farrell over this...

Quote:

A number of amendments to the state bill have been proposed, one allowing faith-based agencies to be exempt from the anti-discrimination provisions so that they could refuse their services to gay couples.

This is a good thing.  
While I'd prefer it was banned outright, if it's going to be allowed at all, people mustn't have to compromise their beliefs by being forced to offer services to anyone and everyone who demanded it.  

Last year, only 40 local adoptions took place in Australia, and it's my understanding that those entrusted with the duty of selecting parents for adoption are religious orgs.

Meaning, nothings really changed, MP Clover Moore will not be pleased.


Quote:

A number of amendments to the state bill have been proposed, one allowing faith-based agencies to be exempt from the anti-discrimination provisions so that they could refuse their services to gay couples. Another amendment gives the birth parents the right to veto a same-sex adoption. New South Wales MPs are being allowed a conscience vote.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/09/02/3000512.htm?section=justin

Like I said - think of the child.

It is tantamount to cruelty placing them with a gay couple.

A child needs a stable family unit. A mother and a father in a married family home.

Traditional, christian, family values - what Australia is all about.

I suppose I am one of the religious, self-righteous whingers Equitus speaks so disparagingly about.  

I'd prefer to see  a child  brought up in a stable, loving relationship, of whatever persuasion, than left to fend for themselves with abusive and uncaring parents (or parent).

I forgot to add,  providing the amendments  below are legislated for :

allowing faith-based agencies to be exempt from the anti-discrimination provisions so that they could refuse their services to gay couples.

Another amendment gives the birth parents the right to veto a same-sex adoption.

NSW Opposition Leader Barry O'Farrell has spoken in support of a bill to allow same-sex couples to adopt children, saying the current system is discriminatory.
Mr O'Farrell had until now not indicated whether he would back the bill, saying he did not want to sway Coalition MPs who have been allowed a conscience vote on the issue.

Speaking during a debate in parliament this morning, the Opposition leader said he supported the bill, introduced by independent MP Clover Moore.

However, he added the issue was not a matter of gay rights but of removing discrimination in the adoption act in the best interests of children.

"I support this measure today ... for the sake of children but also because I don't believe our society should exclude because of gender, sexuality, faith, background or some other factor, people who have a contribution they can make," he said.

"The question for those of us concerned about the interests of the child in this debate is why should certain couples, because of sexual preference, not be eligible to be assessed according to laws and regulations that by any measure place child wellbeing at the centre of decision-making."

A vote on the bill will be held in the lower house later on Thursday


http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/oppostion-leader-barry-ofarrell-backs-same-sex-adoption-bill/story-e6freuy9-1225913215042

Breaking news, NSW parliment passes the vote 46-44.

A bill which would allow same-sex couples to adopt in New South Wales has been passed in the state parliament's Lower House.

The bill passed with 46 votes in favour and 44 against.

MPs were allowed a conscience vote on the legislation.

Many speaking this morning were in favour of proposed amendments which modify the anti-discrimination provisions so that faith-based agencies can refuse services to gay couples and the preferences of birth parents can be met.

Kristina Keneally and Barry O'Farrell both suported the bill, but Nationals leader Andrew Stoner said he did not.

The bill now goes to the Upper House.

More to come.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 2^nd, 2010 at 12:01pm:

Like I said - think of the child. It is tantamount to cruelty placing them with a gay couple. A child needs a stable family unit. A mother and a father in a married family home. Traditional, christian, family values - what Australia is all about.

Half of all marriages end in divorce... it could even be more than half now. That's not so stable now is it?

Sappho wrote on Sep 2^nd, 2010 at 1:27pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 2nd, 2010 at 12:01pm: Like I said - think of the child. It is tantamount to cruelty placing them with a gay couple. A child needs a stable family unit. A mother and a father in a married family home. Traditional, christian, family values - what Australia is all about. Half of all marriages end in divorce... it could even be more than half now. That's not so stable now is it?

Do we have figures on how many of these divorces occur after junior has moved out of home, thus making it a non-issue?

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 2^nd, 2010 at 12:01pm:

Like I said - think of the child. It is tantamount to cruelty placing them with a gay couple. A child needs a stable family unit. A mother and a father in a married family home. Traditional, christian, family values - what Australia is all about.

So all the children of people like soldiers, sailors, merchant seamen, drovers, miners and long haul truck drivers are living in UNstable family units, and should be removed?????

I didn't realise you were gay Vanessa, I missed that bit.

I thought you were just a single woman who didn't have a partner at this time and wanted a child.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 2^nd, 2010 at 2:44pm:

I didn't realise you were gay Vanessa, I missed that bit. I thought you were just a single woman who didn't have a partner at this time and wanted a child.

It's not something I feel the need to announce to the world. I know some people do, but I prefer to keep it to myself - I know how badly you can be treated.

I don't have a partner and I honestly don't have any interest in finding one. I hope to have kids one day, but that would depend on my financial situation.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 2^nd, 2010 at 12:01pm:

Like I said - think of the child. It is tantamount to cruelty placing them with a gay couple. A child needs a stable family unit. A mother and a father in a married family home. Traditional, christian, family values - what Australia is all about.

I am not concerned about so called Christian values. That doesn't matter. A persons religion has no bearing on whether they would make a good parent.

We may have been a traditional country in the past, but times do change, and they have changed, and we are moving with the tide of change.

I don't think that it is cruel to let gay people raise kids - I think it is cruel for straight couples to divorce, knowing the effect it will have on their children. THAT is cruel - yet we don't see anyone objecting against that.

A child being told their parents no longer love each other and don't even want to live in the same house would be far more hurtful to the child to be told he/she has two parents of the same sex who happen to be in love.

Vanessa wrote on Sep 2^nd, 2010 at 5:56pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 2nd, 2010 at 12:01pm: Like I said - think of the child. It is tantamount to cruelty placing them with a gay couple. A child needs a stable family unit. A mother and a father in a married family home. Traditional, christian, family values - what Australia is all about. I am not concerned about so called Christian values. That doesn't matter. A persons religion has no bearing on whether they would make a good parent. We may have been a traditional country in the past, but times do change, and they have changed, and we are moving with the tide of change. I don't think that it is cruel to let gay people raise kids - I think it is cruel for straight couples to divorce, knowing the effect it will have on their children. THAT is cruel - yet we don't see anyone objecting against that. A child being told their parents no longer love each other and don't even want to live in the same house would be far more hurtful to the child to be told he/she has two parents of the same sex who happen to be in love.

And when a same sex couple get 'divorced'?