by Mr Wainscotting
Fiona Donoghue appeared on TVOne’s Breakfast this morning to present Adoption Action’s argument for law reform. Reform is long over due, and needs to take into account how modern New Zealand families work, including rights for same-sex couples. It didn’t take long for the gnashing of teeth.
“Listening this morning to TV One’s breakfast show interview with Fiona Donoghue, the spokesperson for the lobby group Adoption Action, I found her logic laughable as she tried to cover the gay lobby’s drive to change the law in their favour.
“Ms Donaghue began by making a lengthy appeal for the Adoption Act review on the basis that it should be all about the ‘rights of the child’, ‘the best interests of the child’, which of course it should be, but then she shifted to same sex adoption and her argument focused on the rights of same sex adults to adopt. What hypocrisy and contradiction!!”
That from Larry Baldock, leader of the failing Kiwi Party. So, the man who wants to allow parents to beat children with an implement is telling us he knows what the “best interests of the child” are…
“In the interests of every child the Adoption Act should only place a child in the care of a man, (a father) and a woman, (a mother), who have made a life long commitment to each other and to the child being entrusted to them, because this is in the best interests of every child.”
Um… Citation needed. There is no evidence to show that children require two (2.00) parents and one must have a diddle and the other a fanny. Sure, there’s evidence that children do better with two (as opposed to one or none) committed parents in a stable relationship, but there is not a shred that suggests that the gender or sex of the parents is of fundamental importance, and there’s certainly not the tiniest scrap of evidence to suggest that children do any worse when raised by same-sex parents.
All that matters is whether that child is loved and respected. Same-sex couples who raise children tend to have these in spades. Same-sex couples who adopt tend to be more financially secure, slightly older and more mature. They don’t have unexpected children — to quote the immensely brazen Jamie Kilstein “these are people who have children for a better reason than ‘the condom broke.'” And that’s not even taking into account lesbian or bi women, for example, who have children from a previous straight relationship and want their new same-sex partner to share in being a parent; or the many, many other reasons a same-sex couple would want to adopt.
To deny us the right is bigotry. To suggest that same-sex couples aren’t fit to raise children for no other reason than that we’re not straight is offensive not only to us, but to the children everywhere that arseholes like Baldock are claiming to protect.
And that’s not even covering all the other reasons for modernising an antiquated, discriminatory law that treats children as chattel.