91Èȱ¬

Surely adoption is considered on a case-by-case basis and that any arguments one could make in opposition to a case would be equally valid in either a homosexual one or a heterosexual one? I fail to see how the quality of parenthood is going to be different based upon the sexual orientation of the parents; rather it is their ability to commit to, to provide for, to take delight from, the raising of a child.

love the cartoon!

I don't understand why the DUP are so threatened by cohabiting couples with children. It's bizarre. They are offending many people like me in unmarried relationships with children. What are they saying to us? That we are bad parents? That's really going to win my vote.

im glad we're having these debates right now in NI because we have to be clear that the dup can be trusted with human rights. a lot of us are watching them now to see how they do.

Equally a lot of us are watching them closely to see if a leopard can really change it's spots. And yet again the DUP prove that they can't change their's.

A lot of those who are against gay adoption are really against gays full stop. They think kids are in danger from gays. That's the serious homophobia underlying their objection.

I think it'll take about 5 years in NI to get through the key challenges for the govt here. Then once gay rights legislation is complete, we can all move on in this society and concentrate on more positive debates.

NI is in a process of change, from a unionist/nationalist fight which dominates politics, to a 'normal' political society wherein politics deals with everything else. The DUP were elected for their unionism, not for their approach to any of these kinds of 'normal' political issues, on which we're slowly finding out what they believe. When/if NI becomes mostly 'normal', my hope is that parties who believe these things about gay people won't be elected anymore.

Surely if we want the best for an adopted child, we would want to ensure that they are placed in a secure home, with a mother and father who are not only living together, but committed to each other in marriage.

Does the child not have the right to that sort of security and love?

John Wright,

"The DUP were elected for their unionism, not for their approach to any of these kinds of 'normal' political issues, on which we're slowly finding out what they believe."

Wise up. When the leader of the party is also the moderator of the Free P Church, do you really think voters are in any doubt of what the party stands for regarding religion?

Taken from The Christian Institute's Website.

"The Christian Institute today expressed its dismay at the Government's plans to extend joint adoption by homosexuals to Northern Ireland. It is currently the only part of the UK where such adoption is unlawful.

Almost all those who responded to the Government's NI consultation were against the proposal. The official report of the consultation shows that 95% of respondents did not want the law to change to allow homosexual couples to adopt.

The plans will deliberately deny a child either a mother or a father. If two men adopt, the child has no mother; if two women adopt, the child has no father.

Reacting to today's news, The Christian Institute's Northern Ireland Officer, Callum Webster, said:

"The Government is showing amazing contempt for the people of Northern Ireland. The minister may say he is 'sensitive to the strength of feeling people have on the proposal' but in fact he has just stuck his fingers in his ears.

"The consultation process was clearly a sham - 95% of respondents opposed gay adoption, but ministers carry on regardless, dictating political correctness to the people of Northern Ireland.

"Vulnerable children are to be used as political pawns to promote gay rights. The majority of European countries do not allow joint adoption by homosexuals. Even some countries with partnership schemes for homosexuals don't allow registered partners to adopt.

"Children need a mother and a father. All reliable studies show that a married mother and father is best for children. Most research backing same-sex parenting is merely propaganda parading as evidence. Gay adoption puts gay rights over and above the best interests of children."

If the law is changed, then religious adoption agencies in Northern Ireland could face closure because of separate new gay discrimination laws. The Northern Ireland Sexual Orientation Regulations came into force on 1 January but are subject to a judicial review in the High Court on 1-2 March. The Christian Institute and denominations representing 15,000 people in Northern Ireland are suing the Government because the consultation process was fundamentally flawed and the laws breach religious liberty. A religious adoption agency which refused to place children with homosexual couples could face closure under the Sexual Orientation Regulations.

"In the USA the Scouts had to spend huge sums of money (thought to be $1million) defending hostile legal actions from gay rights activists. It looks like Government will allow religious charities to face these sorts of legal actions in the UK.

"Christians were pioneers in adoption. For years they have been quietly finding good homes for vulnerable children. Now all religious adoption agencies are being threatened with closure all because they are not politically correct. It is the children who will suffer. I fear so will the elderly.""

Rubberduckie:

What a curious statement you;ve included here. First, it says the Christian Institute expresses dismay at the Government's plans to extend the English law to NI. This is untrue. The government has made no such proposal. The health minister here is considering the matter at present; nothing has been decided. Eventually the matter will be resolved by either the Assembly or the Courts. The GB government will not make this decision on behalf of NI, it will leave the matter to the NI Assembly which reprsents the people of NI.

Second, the people speak through their representatives, not through a government consultation. Only a few hundred people take part in consultations. If you take a poll of the people more widely you may find a very different outcome.

Third, the debate is about unmarried couples gaining adoption rights, NOT merely gay couples. Your comments here suggest an odd obsession with gay people. The debate is much wider than one category of people.

For what it's worth, I think the NI law will in fact be changed. Not this year however. I imagine the full change will take about three years (as it did in England and Wales). We already permit unmarried single people to adopt (gay AND straight); it's odd that we do not allow unmarried couples to adopt too.

I suppose we should be glad that the fundamentalists arent coming out of the woodwork now to call all the gay couples paedophiles.

We need to get our heads round this issue. Marriage is NOT the only way to organise a relationship in the modern world.

Philip Campbell would stop any unmarried couple from adopting children. This would leave a lot of kids in care. In fact, we can't persuade enough married couples to adopt children. Thank God for the cohabiting and gay couples willing to give up their freedom and accept a lot of responsibility for the care of children.

On the scouts thing, rubberduckie. I'm an american scout and im straight but I was outraged that we were discriminationg against gay colleagues. It's not right that a person's sexuality should stop him working in scouting or in, for example, teaching, the miliatary or youth work (since scouting has aspects of all those sectors). I'm for fairness. That's a scouting principle.

Anne Green,

What a curious response you have posted ...

Your first point is just incorrect.

See the report below:

Second, I have merely posted material from the Christian Institute's website - I fail to see how they automatically become MY comments (as you put it).

Third, I wonder if the consultation produced results which were in support of the change in law, would you still be so dismissive of them.

Last, as the DUP is N Ireland's largest party, I believe people have spoken through their representatives.

John Wright, your opening post is bang on the pulse. Couldnt agree more. I dont think you can make a logical arguement for why parenting is better if both parents are heterosexual!

Rubberduckie- the people have spoken through their representatives! SO BLOODY WHAT!!! Most of Germany voted for the Nazis in 1933!!! I couldnt care less if they are the biggest party, they have to put up some good arguments for why UNMARRIED ADOPTION is wrong? Is there any evidence for this? Are they merely obssessed with homosexuality?? The people who support them have to do the same! I think if an extensive study was completed, there would be zero evidence that unmarried parents are less able or less successful thna married ones! PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY UNMARRIED ADOPTION IS WRONG!

PS- stop with the "just becuase ive posted from the christian institute, why does that suddenly make them my comments" GARBAGE! If you were in any way honest you would bloody well admit that you support their sentiments! Why did you post their comment? TO SHOW US WHAT THE CHRISTIAN INSTITUTE THINK? PULL THE OTHER ONE MATE! Have the courage of your convictions and admit what you think!

PS- "All reliable studies show that a mother and father are needed"!
WHAT MAKES A STUDY RELIABLE FOR THEM? WOULDNT IT BE NICE IF THEY QUOTED THE STUDIES THAT ARE RELIABLE! THE FACT THAT THEY DONT AND THEN ARE SO QUICK TO RUBBISH ALL STUDIES IN FAVOUR AS "PROPAGANDA" MAKES IT ABUNDANTLY CLEAR THAT THE CHRISTIAN INSTITUTE ARE THE ONES INVOLVED IN PUSHING PROPAGANDA!

I think anyone claiming that the DUP were elected on the basis of their opposition to gay rights is bizarre. I do not remember any reference to gay issues being made during the election campaign. I imagine most DUP voters chose the party because of the wanted a strong unionist voice in the assembly. I'd also say that the majority of DUP voters do not share the religious beliefs of Free Presbyterian Church.

I fear that Ian Og and Jeffrey will get away with their homophobic diatribes because the heterosexual community is more worried about other issues. This is a shame and I hope we see gay and gay-friendly people in NI make vocal opposition to any homophobic policies that the DUP try to implement.

Joe,

A well reasoned argument, sir.

You have convinced me.

Regards,

rubberduckie

its a bit like the abortion debate this.

Who really bothers to consult with the children about what they really want before they are sacrificed on the altar of the latest ideology?

(As so many men are aborted I feel I have a right to comment on their behalf).

I dont consider it proper consultation to push a young child into a controversial adoption arrangement and then ask them what they think about it.

Would we seriously base any other form of legislation on the opinions of preteens?

Children can be very clued into telling adults what they are "expected" to and what have they got to measure their views by?

According to David Cameron half all cohabiting parents split up before their child's 5th birthday and Cameron is no hardliner.

Why do women feel so safe having children to men who dont have the balls to formally tell the world they will stick by them through thick and thin and even when they may lose their initial attractiveness of youth?

Do such couples even discuss what committment they *might* have for each other?

As someone said (sadly), horse breeders take more care with the foals they breed nowadays than many people do in breeding children.

The people who suffer are the innocent children who grow up without a stable homelife or fatherfigure.

And shame on anyone who thinks ill of the person who says it out loud.

The taxpayer picks up the financial costs but the real cost cannot be counted.

PB

rubberduckie- I would respond to you but I see others already have done a great job of doing so (to no avail despite your sarcasm in #16 I'm sure). Of course, you have yet to convince almost anyone else here that your prejudice is ethical, rational or remotely defendable.

-------------------

PB says- "Who really bothers to consult with the children about what they really want before they are sacrificed on the altar of the latest ideology?"

I love this! It's for the kids' sake that you object, rather than for the sake of the prejudice of any foregoing discriminatory theological belief! I see! So which of the following are you claiming, PB (multiple choice)...?

A) Having gay parents may somehow affect the quality of parenthood, all other things equal;
B) A child would be automatically disadvantaged by being raised by gay people in some other way;
C) Some children are homophobic so they should be consulted in case they are, and we should feed into that homophobia rather than dispell it (in those cases where the child is old enough to understand);
D) Children should have the chance to grow up homophobic if they want, and not have that choice pre-empted for them by being raised by gay parents (in those cases where the child is too young to understand);
E) All of the above?

I'm sure the readers here would love to hear your answer.

A secondary question is this: since your concern is for the child being adopted, wouldn't your consultation of the child occur in EVERY adoption, and why would you possibly think it more pertinent to consult the child in the case of an adoption by gay parents? Why do you construct a difference?

And a final inquiry: you mention the lack of commitment of unmarried couples possibly having an effect on the adopted child. But you are the commenter on this blog who has most frequently opposed gay marriage! So you won't allow them to marry, and by virtue of the fact that they can't, then won't allow them to adopt! That's your position on both, isn't it? Or are you saying that gay people are incapable of conducting committed monogamous relationships?

You've really dug yourself a hole on this one.

Mick,

You said "I think anyone claiming that the DUP were elected on the basis of their opposition to gay rights is bizarre. "

So do I. I certainly would not claim that.

John Wright,

Me, sarcastic, surely not...

kind regards,

r duckie

JW

Is your head really so far up your ideology that you have lost touch with the real world?

The onus is on you with the new paradigm to show the evidence that non-marriade adoption is not disadvantage to the children.

I know you believe in gender roles; how would these be taught in same sex adoption????

Do you think the toddler in the photograph above actually wrote the banner being held by the apparently two gay dads - or do you think someone wrote it for him?

And I think it unfair to assume that same sex adoption would not also put a child into an environment which would carry with it alot more social assumptions that may not be preferred by the child or natural parents.

It may interest you to know that in this country ni, there is a statutory responsibility to consult both children and their natural parents on the particulars of their proposed adoption.

You seem to imply that no such consultation should occur, exceppt with liberal social enginners.

A type of liberal-socio-fascism, if you like?

PB

JW

Dont think I have ever opposed gay marriage on this blog.

What I have done is repeatedly point out that people are not defending what they think they are when they defend homosexuality.

It is often compared to race or gender etc but as Tatchell and Kinsey point out, many gay people go straight of their own accord.

Tatchell says it is a lifestyle choice. I dont think it is always as simple as that, but I think he has a strong point. He does NOT believe people are born gay. Neither does Andy Comiskey of Desert Stream Ministries who was hay but is now married with kids.

My main concerns are that gay people are allowed to know all the facts to make their own choices and at being forced to endorse a lifestyle choice made by someone else against my conscience. Even if someone has homosexual feelings, it does not follow they must legally force me to legitimise them, anymore that it would be fair of me to ask their blessing on my adultery.

Lastly JW, when HM Govt projected that only 2.5% of the gay community would be interested in permenant monogamous relationships of civil partnerships, why should I be made the scapegoat for questioning if same sex partnerships are stable enough for adoption, aside from the sexuality question?

PB

PB-

"The onus is on you with the new paradigm to show the evidence that non-marriade adoption is not disadvantage to the children."

Yet again you give credence to an idea merely because it's the status quo. In this case, the idea (and the status quo) is that heterosexual monogamous marriage is the only legitimate context for the raising of children. What convoluted logic to suggest that the burden of proof is mine to prove to you that other ideas are not wrong! I contend that the lack of any reason to the contrary shifts that burden to you, my friend. If you believe something is wrong, it's up to you to explain how it is wrong; you haven't done so and my post #18 was an attempt to draw a possible reason from you.

I know you believe in gender roles; how would these be taught in same sex adoption????

If gender is in the genes as you purport to believe, what makes you feel that any part of it would require any teaching?

"And I think it unfair to assume that same sex adoption would not also put a child into an environment which would carry with it alot more social assumptions that may not be preferred by the child or natural parents."

Like the assumption that being gay is okay? This is what I was getting at with my options (C) and (D) above: you believe that if the kids or their biological parents wish to be homophobic then that shouldn't be challenged, don't you? And if it's merely the case that you wouldn't like the child to be ridiculed for having gay parents, surely you don't feel that the best way to rid the world of such a problem is to feed into the status quo which guarantees that it remains a fringe activity; wouldn't you like to normalise the idea so that it becomes commonplace and not at all something that would attract ridicule of any kind?

?It may interest you to know that in this country ni, there is a statutory responsibility to consult both children and their natural parents on the particulars of their proposed adoption."

No-one is suggesting that that would go away. To the contrary, there would be more options available to the kids and their biological parents during that consultation (the proposals would be allowed to include the possibility of being adopted by gay couples as well as heterosexual ones, whereas the status quo infringes upon that possibility). Nobody is suggesting forcing people into adoptions by gay parents; instead they're suggesting opening up that possibility to people for whom it's currently not an option. But I think you already know this; you're merely throwing every last thought against this legislation for the reason that you believe it's consistent with your religious belief to do so. But that don't mean you're right.

"Dont think I have ever opposed gay marriage on this blog."

You'd support gay marriage? Confirm that you would, and we're in agreement; the disagreement is over!

"Even if someone has homosexual feelings, it does not follow they must legally force me to legitimise them, anymore that it would be fair of me to ask their blessing on my adultery."

That is an astonishing sentiment. And a confused one. Would you like to ban marital indiscretion in law? Hopefully not. It's, rightly, something that the law (ie. 'society') should just stay out of. There is no legitimate reason that marital unfaithfulness should be illegal. Immoral, maybe, but that's the concern of a different sphere of power (the sphere of the individual, not of society). Similarly, gay people deserve (no, rightly demand) the right to conduct themselves as equals in society with the same abilities (to become partners, to adopt children, etc). You deal with your own family arrangements, and gay people deal with theirs. They don't require your moral sanction (although I believe you're wrong in that regard), but they legitimately demand your legal sanction (ie. the freedom to conduct themselves as their moral code stipulates. Neither you nor they have the right to infringe on each others' rights in this regard, and currently you're the only one doing the infringing. :-)

At least they are wanting to support some other irresponsible straight mans child. Surely this makes the homosexual couple more of a man then the biological father.