mellie wrote on Sep 1
st, 2010 at 5:56pm:
Sappho wrote on Sep 1
st, 2010 at 5:39pm:
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.
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.
Forum
Pages: 
