"Homosexual Adoption a Step Too Far in Reforms
The political agenda of the homosexual lobby over the years has been clear-cut: moral equivalence for same-sex couples with heterosexuals, social acceptance and legal recognition. Homosexual activists found a champion in WA Attorney-General Jim McGinty, who pursued so-called gay rights reforms with a crusading zeal.
His program of change attracted support - to a degree. No one in his or her right mind would seriously argue in the 21st century against the removal of discrimination against homosexuals in employment and access to housing and, indeed, elements of everyday life in general. And there can be no sustainable, coherent argument from justice or equity for same-sex couples being denied many legal rights that are available to married couples.
Mr McGinty got little community opposition on these issues when he enacted his reforms agenda about six years ago. The general view was, and remains, that homosexuals should not have to endure unnecessary legal disadvantage*1.
However, it is most likely the overwhelming community view that when the rights of homosexuals are weighed against those of children*2, the latter must always prevail.
There has been no indication of significant levels of community support for adoption of children by homosexuals*3.
The prevailing view would still be that the interests of children are best served by having both a father and a mother in the home.
Thus the adoption of a child by a homosexual couple in WA can be accurately characterised as the most radical consequence of the McGinty reforms.
And it is a profoundly disturbing one for many Western Australians.
Now it is more than likely that anyone who makes observations along those lines will be automatically denounced by elements of the homosexual lobby as being what they call homophobic. That of course doesn't amount to any sort of argument - it's merely name calling, a variety of the same mindless type of stereotyping that homosexuals rightly resent when it is directed towards them*4.
Furthermore, that sort of response reinforces the view that, for radical homosexual activists, homosexual adoption fulfils a primary symbolic function as an assertion of moral equivalence between homosexual unions and traditional marriages.
In other words, the adopted child becomes the means of making a political point*5 in that view, which does a disservice to homosexual couples who may have a genuine interest in raising children*6.
And it must be acknowledged that there is such couples who would provide loving and nurturing homes for children. It is also true that many children in traditional families suffer because of marriage breakdown, neglect, violence and so on.
However, it cannot be inferred from this that homosexual unions are necessarily more harmonious and conducive to raising children properly*7. Any such view is based on the fiction that infidelity, violence, avoidance of responsibility and so on are unknown among homosexual couples.
It is still the case that a loving partnership of a man and a woman is best for bringing up children.*8 And there is no case for homosexual adoption while such partnerships with children's best interests at heart are left childless by adoption officials.*9
>> The West Australian, Thursday June 14th 2007, Page 12
_________________________________________
Bull.
*1 - What sort of necessary legal disadvantages do homosexuals deserve to endure?
*2 - How are their rights being weighed against each other?
*3 - Maybe not in the community the West Australian was interviewing - the 20% Western Australia that are right wing Christians.
*4 - Calling discriminatory homophobes homophobic is hardly the same as being verbally/physically abused for nothing more than your sexual preference. For being denied the rights that are taken for granted by everyone else.
*5 - Yes. I'm sure most of the homosexuals that are attempting to adopt children to raise as their own are just trying to make a political point.
*6 - Again, let's all be astonished at the idea.
*7 - No-one claimed that homosexuals would raise children better. The whole point is equality. There are good and bad parents of all genders, races, ages, and orientations.
*8 - Because if your family isn't like that, the same people who wrote this would persecute you. Either having only one parent, which is labeled inadequate, or homosexual parents, which has a whole other bunch of labels.
They're the ones making these families worse off than the generic nuclear family. If a kid didn't get picked on at school or in the community for having gay parents, there is no reason whatsoever of why they would be any worse off than the next kid.
[You create the evils you brand them with, Mr Howard.]
*9 - There are enough anti-homosexual people/feelings in the adoption system, I'm sure, that for a gay couple to be granted the adoption rights, the other "loving, childless parents" were probably [crack heads].
No case?
No case?
How dare you.
How dare anyone.
The West Australian: As quoted by [quite frankly, many]; The worst newspaper in Australia, and possibly the world."
>> journal entry
June 15th, 2007 at 02:42pm