Tuesday, March 3, 2009

On the N.S.W. Upper House Inquiry into same-sex adoption: the written submissions

http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/committee.nsf/V3ListSubmissions?open&ParentUNID=9560123A64B83B8DCA2575130016A0CA

Firstly I want to note how little attention this whole matter has received in the media. Every day of last week from Monday I read the print edition of The Daily Telegraph and the websites of The Sydney Morning Herald and The Australian, and I found nothing on the story. Before writing this blog post I did a Google search and, after checking out the top seventy or so results, I found only a handful of mainstream media articles—one from The Australian that I must have missed (with its content apparently reproduced in the other Murdoch papers, except, oddly, Sydney’s own Daily Telegraph) and a couple of A.B.C. news articles, and that was about it. I don’t whether the commercial T.V. networks covered the story but I strongly doubt it (let me know in the combox if they did).

Now to the written submissions that the Inquiry received. The Inquiry’s website has posted a selection of a couple of dozen out of the more than two hundred received, and I encourage you to check them out. I’ll begin by looking at those written in support of the proposal. I’ve downloaded and read a few for the proposal and a few against, and I’ll start with the submissions written by supporters of the proposal. Ranking first in infamy must surely be two organisations that are supposed to be at the front line of defending and promoting the welfare of children, the Council of Social Services N.S.W. (N.C.O.S.S.) and the Association of Children’s Welfare Agencies (A.C.W.A.). N.C.O.S.S.’s submission was particularly interesting. In its introductory section, providing background on the matter, it implicitly acknowledges that the promotion of children’s welfare was not the driving force behind this move—rather, it was the simple fact that, rightly or wrongly (wrongly, I contend), more and more same-sex couples are acquiring children:

There are increasing numbers of same-sex couples who have children and who want to have children in the future. Gay couples are using surrogacy to enable them to have children and lesbian couples are seeking assisted or self insemination. This means that there will be an increasing number of families where the same-sex partner will want to be recognised as their child’s parent through adoption. And, as with opposite-sex couples, there will be same-sex couples who are unable to have children and who will want to adopt a child as a couple.
p. 4
So clearly this whole proposal is, at least in its origins, more about the homosexuals than the children.

Offensive though it is, the support of welfare groups for same-sex adoption was, unfortunately, pretty predictable. Quite surprising, though, was what Dr. Damien W. Riggs had to say in his submission. Surprising would probably be an understatement, actually. Dr. Riggs says some incredible things, incredible even by the consistently mind-boggling standards of the Sodomite’s League. His submission is only two pages, and I strongly encourage you to read the whole thing if you want to begin to understand the thinking of the G.L.B.T. intelligentsia. (Curiously, when one goes to download the document one would infer that it is some kind of official statement from the Australian Psychological Society (A.P.S.), yet judging from the document itself it is unclear whether it offers the official position of the A.P.S. or just Dr. Riggs’ own thoughts). The submission is drawn from a book by Dr. Riggs, and the book’s title is enough to start the alarm bells ringing: it is called Becoming Parent [sic!]: Lesbians, Gay Men and Family. Furthemore, Dr. Riggs says that

Whilst empirical evidence continues to demonstrate the suitability of lesbians and gay men as parents and the positive outcomes for their children, it is also important that we question the very terms upon which existing stereotypes or myths are made.
p. 2
So this man is clearly some kind of positivist/constructivist. He goes on to question several of these ‘myths’, in the course of which he asks

How may lesbian or gay headed households potentially challenge gender norms or provide a space for children to develop their own relations to, or critiques of, gender norms? In this sense, lesbian- or gay-headed households may be an important place where children of a range of gender identities can develop a positive sense of self.
p.2
Watch it, Riggsy—if the kids start doing their own ‘gender norm critiquing’ you might be out of a job! Dr. Riggs then goes on to examine a third ‘myth’:

Myth #3: Lesbian and gay parents are ‘radicals’ or ‘militants’ who try to recruit people, or who teach their children to be lesbian or gay. Lesbian and gay parents thus interfere with the ‘normal development’ of children.

This type of argument against lesbian and gay parents is one that encourages lesbians and gay men to decry any involvement in politics or advocacy. This can result in a denial of some of the very concrete reasons for why advocacy or ‘radicalism’ may be necessary. For example, and as research on domestic violence has long demonstrated, a significant proportion of women continue to suffer abuse in the context of heterosexual relationships. For some women, this may result in the choice of lesbianism as a viable alternative to remaining in heterosexual relationships. ...
p. 3
So far from allaying our concerns about radical lesbians, Dr. Riggs inflames them! It’s good of him to take his positivism to its logical conclusion though—in the face of gays and lesbians defending themselves by arguing that their sexual (dis)orientation is not of their choosing, he acknowledges that homosexuality can be a free choice. Most amazing, though, is how Dr. Riggs’ deals with his last myth:

Myth #5: Lesbians and gay men lead transient lives with multiple sexual partners and show a lack of regard for long-term monogamous relationships. As such, they are unable to provide children with stability or safety in a family environment.

This final argument against lesbians and gay men who parent can be challenged in two distinct ways. First, we can make reference to the extensive literature on lesbian families (in particular), which shows that children raised in such families actually experience many positive outcomes that arise precisely from the specific forms of family created by lesbians that are indeed very stable and nurturing.

The second response to accusations of instability focuses on the terms employed in the accusation itself: the presumption is that having more than one partner over the life course is inherently detrimental to children. This denies the ways in which children are often very robust in their responses to change, and denies the positive benefits that children may gain from interacting with the many differing adults who come in and out of all children’s lives. Rather than focusing on presumption about what could impact upon children negatively (for which the list is endless), it is more appropriate to focus on things that do support children, namely caring relationships that respect children’s right to knowledge as active participants in the families that they are part of.
p. 3
There are a few things to note in this nonsense. The first is the focus on lesbian parents; but what about gay male ‘co-parents’? Given that even heterosexual men have a worse reputation for infidelity than women, what of homosexual men, who are notorious for their promiscuity? Mr. Muehlenburg, in this post, noted that a recent Dutch study found “that homosexual men with a “steady partner” have 8 casual sexual partners a year.” Furthermore, it is bizarre that Dr. Riggs speaks of “specific forms of family created by lesbians”, when the mantra of the same-sex adoption advocates is supposed to be that family structure are irrelevant.

But the second paragraph is simply stunning; incredibly, Dr. Riggs speaks of

the positive benefits that children may gain from interacting with the many differing adults who come in and out of all children’s lives.
So for Dr. Riggs, children having to live through a string of mummy’s or daddy’s paramours is a good thing! Far from refuting the contention that same-sex couples are more unstable than opposite-sex couples, he celebrates their instability! What planet is this man on?! Yet apparently he is in good enough standing with the A.P.S. to act as some kind of quasi-spokesman for it. I have now lost all respect for the psychological profession. What a bunch of quacks.

The topic of multiple parents brings us to the submission from the Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby. Now this disgraceful organisation’s very name ought to be enough to discredit it—this is a matter of children’s rights, not parents rights; indeed, N.S.W. adoption law affirms that there is no right to adopt. But let’s not shoot the messenger; let’s see what this Lobby has to say. Its submission was by far the biggest as far as I can tell, yet its effectiveness was in inverse proportion to its size. The document was, naturally, strong on the detail of exactly how the law needs to be changed in order to achieve the Lobby’s aims, yet pitifully weak on explaining why the those aims should be accepted—a mere three pages out of a total of forty-eight were devoted to making its case that same-sex parents are no worse than opposite-sex parents. I encourage you to read the three pages for yourself, pages 29-31; I fail to see how an impartial observer could find this convincing beyond reasonable doubt that same-sex parents are no worse than opposite-parents. Surely it would have benefited them to include lengthier quotations from the supposedly ‘overwhelming’ body of research in favour of same-sex parenting. The best the Lobby can do is point out the automatic materialistic benefits that would flow from recognition of same-sex parents, such as inheritance rights; the non-material side of things seems secondary to this organisation. And have a look at some of the other assertions it makes when comparing same- and opposite-sex parent families:

In some cases, children parented by same-sex couples have even demonstrated better development outcomes than those raised in other family structures. Some research suggests that children benefit from seeing a more equitable division of paid and unpaid domestic labour characteristic of same-sex partnerships. Chidlren may also develop more empathetic attitudes towards other social difference [sic]. Lesbian and gay parents have also been found to use less physical discipline than other parents.
pp. 29-30
Well if division of household labour is so important (!) why stop at two parents? Why not have one to take care of the front yard, one to take care of the back yard, and one to cover each room of the house! That sounds a bit silly does it? Not necessarily, according to this Lobby:

5.3.3.1 Multi-parent adoption
One suggestion has been consideration of whether multi-parent adoption could be desirable. This would given an ‘opt-in’ mechanism for a third (or fourth) parent to adopt their child where the existing legal parent(s) consent. There is one reported case of a three-parent adoption being granted by the Court of Appeal in Ontario, Canada for a child with two mothers and one father. In that case, the lesbian co-mother was legally recognised as a parent to the child in addition to (rather than replacing, as in step-parent adoption) the existing biological mother and father. p . 39

The Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby wants a future inquiry called to look into its suggestions for the complete demolition of the two-parent family. No longer can my thesis about the substitutes vs. complements views of parents be dismissed—the Sodomites’ League is now openly canvassing the absurd possibility of a child having three or more ‘co-parents’. It looks like the slide into the abyss is only beginning.

As for the submissions written against the proposal to extend recognition of same-sex ‘co-parents’, the Archdiocese of Sydney’s submission was one of the biggest, and a strong one at that. It cites some interesting studies that have found that in fact children of same-sex co-parents are more likely to be homosexual, more likely to cross-dress and more likely to be promiscuous. Its brief section 17 is worth quoting in full:

17. In contrast [to the values of heterosexuals], in the first edition of his book in defence of same-sex marriage, ‘Virtually Normal’, homosexual advocate and intellectual Andrew Sullivan wrote:

“There is more likely to be greater understanding of the need for extramarital outlets between two men than between a man and a woman.”

One recent university study of civil unions revealed that 79 percent of heterosexual married men and women reported that they strongly valued sexual fidelity. In comparison, only about 50 percent of gay men in civil unions valued sexual fidelity.
Other sources are also cited as evidence of the greater infidelity of homosexuals relative to heterosexuals (though I suppose that those in the G.L.B.T. intelligentsia like Dr. Riggs won’t regard this as a big deal).

Importantly, the Catholic submission highlights the particular importance of the role of fathers, especially for girls (though it by no means fails to acknowledge the importance of mothers); naturally, the Fatherhood Foundation’s submission points this out too, as well as drawing attention to the greater prevalence of lifestyle and health problems among homosexuals.

Perhaps most importantly, though, the Catholic submission highlights, with supporting evidence, the methodological problems that are often acknowledged to plague empirical studies that have produced results favouring same-sex co-parents. To read the Sydney Archdiocese’s submission is to be left with serious doubts about whether it is in children’s best interests ever to place them with homosexuals, even if the only alternative is the orphanage. The Australian Family Association’s submission was shorter than the Catholic one, but good for its length, supporting the Catholic position that, based on the available research, it is impossible to make firm conclusions about the desirability of same-sex parents.

I’ll conclude by mentioning something pointed out by the Children’s Rights Council of Australia, namely, the poor timing of the inquiry, with the time for submissions spanning the festive period. Was this impulse for this Inquiry really so urgent that it couldn’t wait till the new year was in full swing?

Reginaldvs Cantvar
4.III.2009 A.D.

23 comments:

Rodney & Jeff Chiang-Cruise said...

Well the good thing is that conservatives and cult believers are not going to win on this. Same-sex couples got a whole swag of equality on 1 March (with more to come). Recognition of our families is happening and will continue. The tide has turned and the progress is unstoppable. Even selective quoting by a delusional cult believer like yourself wont change it. As you indicated, the media don't even care about it or don't see it as an issue.

PS. Always an entertain read however. You obviously spend a great amount of time on your blog.

Cardinal Pole said...

"Well the good thing is that conservatives and cult believers are not going to win on this."

Yes, I know.

"Same-sex couples got a whole swag of equality on 1 March (with more to come)."

Yes, I know.

"Recognition of our families is happening and will continue."

You are a sick parody of a family. Sorry to be the one to point it out to you, boys, but: there's one dad too many in your photo!

"The tide has turned and the progress is unstoppable."

Yes, I know.

"Even selective quoting by a delusional cult believer like yourself wont change it."

"Selective quoting"? Pure assertion; show me how my quotations were unrepresentative. In the case of the incredible Dr. Riggs, for instance, I quoted almost half his submission.

"As you indicated, the media don't even care about it or don't see it as an issue."

Well, yes, I did say that, didn't I?

"You obviously spend a great amount of time on your blog."

What a strange thing to say, given that I haven't even updated my blog for more than a week beforehand. And how many blogs do I belong to? One. How many blogs do you belong to? Seven! (And the blogs that you list as following ... are blogs that you belong to! Sodomites really aren't good at hiding their narcissism, are they?)

So, with your assertions disposed of, could you please explain to me how you can possibly justify your robbing a child of a mother?

Rodney & Jeff Chiang-Cruise said...

I don't have to justify it nor would I bother explaining it to you. You are a catholic. Like all people who believe in god or follow cults, they lack the ability for fully rational or logical thought. I find your blog entertaining because you go to quite a bit of trouble to be small minded, hateful and evil. It is people like you that push the undecided or ambivalent towards the light (and I don't mean your side of the argument). Please keep up the good work. Maybe you and John Heard can do something lovely together one day. Love Rodney

Louise said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Louise said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Louise said...

I don't have to justify it nor would I bother explaining it to you. You are a catholic. Like all people who believe in god or follow cults, they lack the ability for fully rational or logical thought.

There's not a little contradiction going on is there?

Surely, it's no trouble to provide a brief, rational explanation of your ideas, if you're so terribly rational yourself. As it is, you merely look abusive.

I would have thought Aquinas was pretty rational, so there goes your silly assertion about believers.

Recognition of our families is happening and will continue. The tide has turned and the progress is unstoppable.

Only true to a point. You may gain wide acceptance, but you will never be able to completely destroy the traditional family.

You obviously spend a great amount of time on your blog.

Not nearly enough time, for my liking!

What a pity, Pole. You get so little opposition on this blog and none of it is rational.

Depriving children of mothers is just out and out selfish.

Rodney & Jeff Chiang-Cruise said...

Louise

I see you are a catholic. How can I take anything you say seriously. Your belief is equivalent to the person who believes there is a giant green teapot spinning around the sun and it has some "god" like powers. I can't possibly take you seriously I am sorry.

You state "surely, it is no trouble". But I reiterate "I don't have to justify it nor would I bother explaining it to you".

You suggest that I have an aim to "destroy the traditional family". Cute. But Louise, your lot are doing such a better job at it than I could ever hope to do.

Tradition by the way is something that is fluid and dynamic. Something you don't seem to be able to grasp.

You are the sort of person who I teach my son to avoid. I tell him that the religious nutters out there are the true definition of "evil". And after reading your profile, you convinced me more. You actually sound quite unbalanced. Talking to invisible beings! And you claim it keeps you sane. Your poor children. I can only imagine you are indoctrinating them in your evil cult as well. It is the equivalent of child abuse in my book. Shame on you.

Though there could be hope for you ...being fond of ABBA. You do realise that they are like "gods" to gay people.

Cheers

Louise said...

I see you are a catholic. How can I take anything you say seriously.

Well, why not? Do you even understand what I believe and why? Or have you been brainwashed by the media?

You suggest that I have an aim to "destroy the traditional family".

Not consciously, perhaps, but the Ideologues who back up your desire to reshape the family certainly do.

But Louise, your lot are doing such a better job at it than I could ever hope to do.

My lot? Which ones? Not the faithful men and women of God that I know, whose marriages are strong and who love and serve one another. No, whilever there are men and women such as these, the Ideologues cannot possibly hope to win. They will create a lot of trouble, certainly, but they will not succeed altogether.

Tradition by the way is something that is fluid and dynamic.

Only in Secular Weenie Land, I'm afraid. Christian marriage is what it ever was: a solemn covenant between a man and a woman.

You are the sort of person who I teach my son to avoid.

So much for ToleranceDiversityRespect!

You do realise you're a bigger bigot than me! I have gay relatives whom I encourage my children to love and respect.

I'm not as unbalanced or as selfish as people who think it's okay to deprive children of a mother and father, so I don't give a fig for your "compassion"!

I can only imagine you are indoctrinating them in your evil cult as well.

I am! I love it!

It is the equivalent of child abuse in my book.

Hilarious!

Shame on you.

You've deprived your child of a mother, but I should be ashamed? If you didn't know I was right about this, you wouldn't attack me in this ridiculous manner. Seriously, what is your reason not to believe in God? Is it just because He doesn't believe that sodomy is the source and summit of all that is true, good and beautiful?

Though there could be hope for you ...being fond of ABBA. You do realise that they are like "gods" to gay people.

Do I care?

Rodney & Jeff Chiang-Cruise said...

Louise

You are unbalanced. What can I say....you speak to people who don't exist! Time to go back on you meds dear!

Cardinal Pole said...

"I don't have to justify it nor would I bother explaining it to you." * 2

I'm speechless. What more can one possibly say to people like this? The thinking person reads comments like those of Mr. Cruise and concludes, after reading his numerous other unsubstantiated assertions as well, that he won't explain it because he can't explain it--he just wants his ticket to social acceptance (namely, the poor boy at the centre of his sick ménage), regardless of the impact on that poor boy. For him the welfare of himself and his catamite is primary; the welfare of the child is secondary.

Louise,

Thanks for your comments, but could I just ask that you (and other readers--please do comment) avoid following Mr. Cruise's diversions to other topics and focus on the children. His comments are remarkable for their focus on himself and those of his ilk while studiously avoiding the big question here: the welfare of the child. Like the pro-sodomite submissions and interviews, he is unable to prove, as the Inquiry's terms of reference require, that the proposal will promote the welfare of children. But for him and his fellow sodomites this is quite secondary, of course.

I note finally that he has done nothing to prove that my quotations were taken out of context. He's really just here to fling assertions about, yet accuses us of lacking the capacity for rational argument!

Rodney & Jeff Chiang-Cruise said...

You both seem to think you have some right to an explanation or justification from me. Where does that come from? What on earth could convince me to explain anything to you. You both talk to imaginary beings for christ sake.

A wise woman once said "those that mind, don't matter and those that matter don't mind".

Pole....keep up the blog posts on your anti-gay religious rants. Most entertain. I have enjoyed my visit.

Louise said...

As usual, it's a complete waste of time trying to get a sensible answer out of gay people. If a mother and father are required for the optimal conditions in raising children, ho is it that people think they have the right to deprive them of one or the other? This is a question that the gays cannot answer reasonably, because, as you say, Pole, it's just all about what gays want to do.

They want to have "families." They want, they want, they want. It is true that all they care about is themselves.

And they do owe us an explanation, because they are deviating from time-honoured tradition in a way we know is injurious to children.

Rodney & Jeff Chiang-Cruise said...

Louise
That love and respect you show to your "gay relatives" is really showing here.

Don't owe you anything ...you are a psycho!

Louise said...

Rodney/Jeff you call me a psycho which is a sure sign that you know you are wrong. I am criticising gays for their views, I am not calling them names. Criticising a person's views is not the same as calling them names (like "psycho"). I respect my gay relatives more than you respect those who disagree with you.

The reason you owe us an explanation is that there is ample evidence your ideology will destroy the society in which we live (it is already starting).

So, why should we change our minds? Give us a good reason that you should be permitted to deliberately deprive your child of a mother.

You won't do it because you can't do it.

Rodney & Jeff Chiang-Cruise said...

You are still a crazy, small minded, evil woman. But I am growing fond of you.

You state:

"So, why should we change our minds? Give us a good reason that you should be permitted to deliberately deprive your child of a mother."

You don't need to change your mind, I am not advocating you change your mind. Your opinion isn't important.

Would you care to elaborate on what you mean by "permitted". Permitted by who?

You state:

"The reason you owe us an explanation is that there is ample evidence your ideology will destroy the society in which we live (it is already starting)."

Don't owe you anything crazy louise.
- "ample evidence" what? where?
- "ideology" so you know what my ideology is, really tell me
- "destroy the society in which we live". I live in it too. You don't own it.
- "it is already starting". Well in someways I will give you that. More and more people don't believe in cults like yours, so in that sense it is starting.

You have 5 children. Highly likely at least 1 will be gay or lesbian. What a bitch mother you will end up being to then.

fondly

Louise said...

You are still a crazy, small minded, evil woman.

Pole, excuse me this momentary diversion, but I would just like to point out that Rodney/Jeff is only saying this because I think he has done the wrong thing in depriving his child of a mother.

Rodney/Jeff - I mean why should society, or the law, permit anyone to be a surrogate mother (ie if it's legal, why should it be and if it's not legal, why aren't people prosecuted?) and secondly, why should society, or the law, permit gay people to adopt or have created for them specially children who will not have a mother or father?

The ideology I speak of is, in this case, the ideology that people should be able to do pretty much what they want to do. They usually add "unless it hurts someone" but then conveniently ignore the damage they do in depriving their child of a father or mother.

I didn't say you don't live in this society, only that your actions and similar actions of others as pertining to the welfare of children will destroy the society in which we both live.

With only 5 children, the likelihood is actually that none will be gay. This would be equally true, even if I had 10.

However, I would certainly be grieved if any of my children grew up to put their own wants ahead of the needs and natural rights of their children.

Rodney & Jeff Chiang-Cruise said...

Louise

My husband and I have a wonderful son who is loved and wanted. He has two dads. He doesn't have a mother. There is NOTHING that a mother can give him that a FATHER can not (and vis-a-versa)....with the exception of breast feeding which many mothers don't do anyway.

He is happy and well adjusted.

It is legal in many states in Australia to be a surrogate and it is legal in many countries (Ethan was born in the USA).

How many gay or lesbian couples with children do you personally know well? At least I can say I know many straight couples with children. I have a perspective. What do you have Louise?

My ideology (which you still don't know) is not evil. Yours is. You are religous, catholic and therefore inherently evil. You may not think you are. That is fine. I however think you are. You are no different than the nazi in the 1930s. You think Marriage is only for Christians, you think gay people should not be treated equally to straight people. That is evil. Pure and simple evil.

"What damage is done to the children". Do you have evidence? Or is it just your view. If it is your view then it is not important. If you have evidence (which as the enquiry is showing doesn't really exist on either side of the argument) then you should put it forward.

I was one of 3 children, 2 of who are gay. My husband was 1 of 5 children, 2 of who are gay.

The likelihood of a gay child in your family (particularly if you have gay relatives) is quite high.

Given your views and small mindedness, it is likely that any GLBT children in your family would probably not tell you.

Do you remember when the church said inter-racial marriages were wrong? Do you remember when the church supported slavery? Do you remember when people went to war with the church saying that they had god on their side? Evil is the church and evil are the people who subscribed to the cults that run.

But as evil and unbalanced as you are....I wouldn't stop you for being equal. You can't say the same to me, can you?

Hugs

Cardinal Pole said...

"You both seem to think you have some right to an explanation or justification from me."

Neither I nor Louise have asserted any such thing. It is curious that someone of such towering intellect as yours does not grasp the purpose of a blog combox, so let me help you out: its purpose is discussion of the issues raised in the original post. That is what Louise and I are trying to do, but it is perfectly clear now that you have just come hither in order to gloat about your impending ignoble little victory and dismiss as stupid anyone you disagrees with you, thereby aggrandising yourself. This suggests that you are a sad, insecure, narcissistic little fellow (like most sodomites) who has plenty of time to spend mocking others, yet insinuates that I have too much time on my hands because I spent some time trying to defend children's welfare. If you are not interested in reasoned debate then please go away.

You (Cruise? Chiang? Identify yourself) say

"My husband ..."

Ha ha ha--the wife speaks!!!

"How many gay or lesbian couples with children do you personally know well?"

I prefer not to make inferences baased on non-random samples, so what relevance would this have?

"You are no different than the nazi in the 1930s."

What a pity that someone of such staggering intellect, such refulgent wit can't come up with anything better than a reductio ad Hitlerum.

"If you have evidence (which as the enquiry is showing doesn't really exist on either side of the argument) ..."

Er, did you even read the public hearing transcripts? If you did then you can't have got very far because in the first interview an impartial civil servant ackowledged that

"the literature is there on both sides."
(Day 1, p. 15)

You say to Louise that

"The likelihood of a gay child in your family (particularly if you have gay relatives) is quite high."

Judgin from the 2003 Sex in Australia survey report, if Louise has one hundred children then two will be gay and one will be lesbian. Not exactly what I'd call "quite high".

Oh, and you keep saying how entertaining you find my blog. Glad to hear it--I'm happy you've finally found a pasttime that doesn't result in anal fissures and faecal infections! I'm sure your catamites will be most relieved too!

Louise said...

There is NOTHING that a mother can give him that a FATHER can not (and vis-a-versa)....with the exception of breast feeding which many mothers don't do anyway.

That is not what the psychologists say. Mothers and fathers are not exactly the same, or even just slightly different (eg not being able to breastfeed). There is much more to it than that.

As Pole has noted, even most gays recognise that and say they will ensure that their children have interaction with adults of the same sex as the missing parent. Why? If there's no difference between the two, why would even gay adoptive parents talk about taking such trouble for their child.

As for evidence, if he hasan't cited it already, Pole will have plenty of links for you, I'm sure. And even if he doesn't I will add some here myself later.

Gotta dash.

Rodney & Jeff Chiang-Cruise said...

Pole for someone so anti-gay you do spend a lot of time talking about anal sex. I suspect Pole is not telling us something about himself! A self loathing homosexual me thinks.

Anyway....thanks for the entertainment. I am comforted in the fact that your "lot" wont win. And we will continue to have and raise wonderful, happy, well adjusted children. You hate that.

Enjoy your small mind.

Oh...one last thing...I don't have a towering intellect but I suppose when compared to you and Louise, it must seem so.

Rodney & Jeff Chiang-Cruise said...

Louise

Thanks for the exchange. Please go back to abusing your children with religion. There is no rest for the wicked and evil like your kind.

I must admit I have had my fun with you. I shouldn't admit it but picking on evil people is pleasing to me. I should be more "tolerant" I suppose.....just like you are. Oh, that is right ..... you arent!

Louise said...

And we will continue to have and raise wonderful, happy, well adjusted children.

So you say, but the results down the track will almost certainly show your optimism to be ill-founded. I base that statement upon the knowledge that the psychologists have of what children need for optimal development.

Cardinal Pole said...

"Pole for someone so anti-gay you do spend a lot of time talking about anal sex."

Where's the contradiction? The grand strategy of the Sodomites' League is to divert public discourse away from questions of behaviour and towards questions of identity; I'm trying to return the focus to the former, where it belongs.

"Oh, that is right ..... you arent!"

plus

"I don't have a towering intellect but I suppose when compared to you and Louise, it must seem so."
&c.

Mmm, real clever. You have all the wit of an early adolescent.

Finally, I note that through the course of ten comments you have failed completely to advance a single argument to justify your child abuse or show that I misrepresented the written submissions. Bye bye, Rodomy.