I've seen so many abusive hetero parents that I have come to the conclusion there shouldn't be "a fuss" about gay adoption- unless the parents in question are also abusive. It makes me sick to see parents in my jail's lobby use every concievable dirty word and berate their small children, TRYING to make them feel worthless. If there is a gay couple that can do better, which I know there are- more power to them. Good article.

I think you are jumping the gun. I don't think single parents really should adopt kids. Single parent homes are a problem, not an answer. Gay people can't marry in most nations, therefore they wouldn't be reasonable choices.

I'm not saying that gay marriages wouldn't be any more "sacred" to the couple than hetero marriages. I don't know, and couldn't judge, but I have never met anyone who was a homosexual that had much esteem for the insitution or monogamy in general. Legally binding marriage is an annoying step beyond simple, disposable cohabitation, though, as anyone who has ever gotten a divorce can tell you. I don't think it is too much to ask that a couple have a legally binding union. The fact that gay people can't have that in most of the world is a separate issue.

Two of my favourite blogs are adoption blogs. One is a lesbian woman who has 4 teenage foster/adoption daughters and twin babies that the adoption has just come through for her on and will come through in 6 weeks for her partner.
The other is a single (straight) 27yo woman who is foster adopting a broken 9yo girl.

All these children were born of heterosexual parents and all of them have been abused - sexually, physically, emotionally. There was also drug related issues too.

Those women (the lesbians and the single woman) are these childrens mothers and they love them with their whole hearts and it's a privilege to be able to read their journey.

On JU I have seen it argued that homosexual parents cannot possibly teach their children what it means to ‘be a man’ or to ‘be a woman’. Unfortunately that Texan blogger never elaborated on exactly what they meant by that.

Perhaps I'm just being egotistical by making this connection, but I hope you don't mean me because I don't remember making an argument against gay adoption.

P.S. I wonder what your idealized aboriginal culture thinks of homosexuality... From what I have read it doesn't go over too well, and homosexuals catch hell from both whites and their own culture. Did the powers that be screw up with that one aspect of the simple life?

I think that if anyone wants to take care of kids and love them as their own then good on them.

Personally I think it should be based on merit, experience and what the adults can offer the kids.

There are too many kids out there who come from "normal" backgrounds who are fucked up and have been abused etc.. I think parenting for all people should be scrutinised before anyone has children. The gene pool in my opinion has been messed around with too much. (i know that im going to get flack over that one but I think its true.)

So anyone who is loving, caring, compassionate and wants to extend that to kids who have come from a background where that isnt the case or who have had their biological parents taken away from them, then good on them!, society should encourage rather than discourage.

Then there is a case for gays who are having kids amounst themselves. I know of many guys who have donated sperm to lesbians in order to have kids and they are the happiest extended families I know. Nothing is stopping lesbians from having kids, and nothing is stopping gay guys from donating sperm to women who want kids.

So I think the issue should be love, compassion, experience, care and what the people can provide to the kids rather than base it on anything to do with their sexuality.

Oh and the likes of Fred NIle and Pell... well they wont be around forever, generations change, death and taxes..

I personally dont have a problem with it.  But I do beleive that preference be given to hetero parents first (not to the exclusion of all else as some can be abusive).  Second would be homosexual parents in a legally binding union (call it what you want) and third and last would be to single parents.

The reason being that 2 parents (let's not get into polygamy right now) are always best for the child, and a man and woman gives a greater variance to the rearing of the child.  IN the absense of a hetero marriage, then a gay couple is better than a single parent.  As much as some would like to think. supermoms are very rare.  One person usually cannot do it all.  Finally to the single parent as a loving parent is better than no parent at all.

You need a licence to drive a car, carry a gun, keep a dog, go fishing, teach, medicate, busk and open your own business. In fact, there is very little we can do that doesn't require some sort of training and/or licencing. Unfortunately, the most important job in the world doesn't require any special licence or training. In fact, just about anyone who wants to can become a parent and there are certainly some who should not be allowed to procreate. But do we stop them? No, because it is none of our business. As should gay marriages and child-rearing be.

If there is a gay couple that can do better, which I know there are- more power to them

Hear, hear. I wish the narrow minded conservatives who are so vocal about this issue would remember the poor tortured children who have grown up in religious households.

Mr Howard’s explanation was that marriage has always been about the continuation of the species

Okay, then what about childless marriages? Should these couples be punished because they're don't have or aren't planning to have children? Beasts mate for the continuation of their species. I like to think humans form partnerships for a lot more reasons than simply ensuring the survivial of the family name. What a ridiculous thing to say, but then, I'm used to hearing this sort of crap come out of Howard's mouth.

Great article, mate.

"In fact, just about anyone who wants to can become a parent and there are certainly some who should not be allowed to procreate. But do we stop them? No, because it is none of our business. As should gay marriages and child-rearing be. "

There's a difference between the uncontrollable occurance of pregnancy and the government handing out children. The child is the ward of the state, who takes responsibility for the destination. You can't liken that to getting knocked up, not in the least.

Regardless, parents ARE held accountable for what happens to their children, so you can't say that parenthood isn't regulated. Your kids can be taken for any number of reasons. So, while you may be right that gay people deserve to be adoptive parents in some cases, you can't make the point that the government doesn't have the right to set specific criterea for adoption. They regulate the parenting of heterosexuals, so they already have and will continue to do so for adoption even more so.

"Hear, hear. I wish the narrow minded conservatives who are so vocal about this issue would remember the poor tortured children who have grown up in religious households. "

LMAO, I love listening to such silliness and trying to imagine how deluded the person's image of "religious households" must be. How's that for narrow minded. Someone watches too much tv, methinks. I think it's silly to think that the average religious household for, oh, the last several hundred years has been somehow a threat to children. A few movies of the week and skewed news reports and suddenly "religious households" are something out of elmer gantry...

you can't make the point that the government doesn't have the right to set specific criterea for adoption

Unless you can argue that the current laws are unconstitutional. For example, what if the specific criteria was that only people of a certain religion or color can adopt? That would then be unconstitutional and the government does not have that right. Now, I don't know about the constitution of Australia, and I'm not sure if the constitution of the US has any specifics on sexual orientation, but in Canada, that would be a violation of the Charter, and the government wouldn't have the right to say "no gays can adopt," in the same way the government of the US has no right to say "no blacks can vote."

Okay, then what about childless marriages? Should these couples be punished because they're don't have or aren't planning to have children?

Or people who have a medical condition and can't have children

"Now, I don't know about the constitution of Australia, and I'm not sure if the constitution of the US has any specifics on sexual orientation, but in Canada, that would be a violation of the Charter, and the government wouldn't have the right to say "no gays can adopt," in the same way the government of the US has no right to say "no blacks can vote."

No, all nations discriminate against certain groups until an exception is made. Felons aren't allowed to vote in some US states. People aren't allowed to marry more than one person, regardless of religion. Drivers licences are denied people with many handicaps, even though handicaps are something you can't *unfairly* discriminate against.

People just don't frame marriage/adoption, etc., in terms of governmental power. "Discrimination" isn't a bad thing, it is simply choosing one thing over another based upon a preference. Granted, sometimes those preferences can be wrong in terms of the Constitution, but frankly we descriminate against other sexual practices all the time.

So "can" is pretty relative until it is spelled out specifically. The government CAN discriminate, they do it all the time, and until homosexuality proves to be akin to ethnicity or physical disability, etc., then I don't see why the government should be told "hands off". Obviously religion isn't enough, since polygamist mormons have their relationships regulated.

This idea that everyone is equaly protected from government discrimination is silly, frankly. Governments in nations that are considered much more "open minded" do it all the time.

I think this may be straying, but I'll say it anyway:

I know a couple who have been happily married for many years and have a gorgeous 2 year old boy. They provide a stable home environment and he wants for nothing. The difference between this family and most 'normal' families is that the boy's mother is a lesbian. Yes, a lesbian. And although in a legally binding heterosexual marriage, she is about to 'marry' her partner. How does this situation fit into the current laws and hoo-ha regarding homosexuality and the family? Have the Howard government or the Christian groups ever heard of such a situation? Or do they just disregard it as fanciful like they disregard most things that don't fit their perfect world view?

I've personally never been able to get a grasp on the whole debate regarding your sexual preference. Homosexuality is practiced widely in the animal kingdom, and we are nothing more than animals on a genetic level. So explain to me why it's fine for the animals to do it, but not the 'oh so intelligent' homo sapiens~?

Flippantly yours.
ps. i told you it was off topic

Flippant, I don't think you were of-topic at all. Nice story and good point.

Single parent homes are a problem, not an answer. Gay people can't marry in most nations, therefore they wouldn't be reasonable choices.

An interesting point to consider.

Those women (the lesbians and the single woman) are these childrens mothers and they love them with their whole hearts and it's a privilege to be able to read their journey.

Lovely story Treens.

I hope you don't mean me

No. I didn't mean you. Eastern Diamondback.

I wonder what your idealized aboriginal culture thinks of homosexuality

There were 440 different Aboriginal cultures in 1780, with many different practices. Today there are far fewer, yet still diversity. Some Aborignal gays talk about receiving far more acceptance when they leave cities and head back to their mob.The gender gap is generally considered to have been far lesser in days preceding white invasion.

Personally I think it should be based on merit, experience and what the adults can offer the kids.

Totally agree PB.

I think parenting for all people should be scrutinised before anyone has children. The gene pool in my opinion has been messed around with too much.

I don't. People have got to learn to accept that shit happens. Often during our childhood. There should be support for that, but I think we remove children from their parent5s too easily. But that's another matter.

But I do beleive that preference be given to hetero parents first (not to the exclusion of all else as some can be abusive). Second would be homosexual parents in a legally binding union

Interesting perspective, well argued. Don't agree though. This being one of the reasons:

a man and woman gives a greater variance to the rearing of the child.

This I think is a good point:

Unfortunately, the most important job in the world doesn't require any special licence or training.

Off-topic but yes I'm in favour of compulsory parenting training. Or at least force everyone to watch SuperNanny.

Great article, mate.

Thanks mate.

I love listening to such silliness and trying to imagine how deluded the person's image of "religious households" must be. How's that for narrow minded.

I don't think he was generalising across all religious households, I read it as "there has been a lot of harm done in religious households too, so that obviously doesn't prevent anything.

Thankyou everyone for your comments.

love listening to such silliness and trying to imagine how deluded the person's image of "religious households" must be. How's that for narrow minded.

I am neither silly, deluded or narrow minded and you don't know me well enough to be calling me anything, Baker. Pull your head in, okay. I was pointing out that some people shouldn't have children, and some households, even 'religous' households, do as much damage to a child as a any other. And another thing... Sarcasm is a pretty lowly form of defence, particularly when you don't know the person in question.

Incidentally, I grew up in a devout Catholic household.