On the N.S.W. Parliamentary Inquiry into extending same-sex adoption ‘rights’

http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/committee.nsf/0/9560123A64B83B8DCA2575130016A0CA

A certain blasphemously-named website (to which I will not link), and other news outlets, have reminded us of a proposal that I seemed to have missed; I speak of the proposal, referred to a New South Wales Parliamentary Inquiry by The Hon. Linda Burney M.P. last December, to extend adoption ‘rights’ to same-sex couples that formed after the child’s birth. (Recently N.S.W. permitted lesbian pairings to identify themselves as ‘parent 1’ and ‘parent 2’ on birth certificates if they had been together since before the birth; see here for more on this).

Mr. Fred Nile M.L.C. (Upper House Christian Democrats leaders) has registered his opposition to the proposal on the basis that a child has a right to a mother and a father. A mere twenty or so years ago this basis would have been unassailable, but now we have to spell it out for the Sodomites’ League. The odd thing is that members of same-sex couples themselves are always quick to defend their acquisition of children by saying that they will endeavour to give their respective children exposure to opposite-sex role models; this is, for instance, evident in a baby-buying sodomite saying to the Herald last week that he and his, er, gentleman friend had

thought long and hard about this and have put everything in place to make sure we can give these children everything they need - including plenty of girlfriends who are cat-fighting over who will be godmother
(http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/12-for-bootees-5-for-bib-30000-for-a-baby/2009/01/23/1232471590759.html)

I also seem to recall a lesbian Politics lecturer in my first year at uni saying that she would make sure to have male role models around for her child. So given that everyone, including the same-sex couples themselves, agree that a child needs balanced first-hand exposure to role models of both sexes, one has to ask oneself: which is the best way to do this—by the stable presence of a mother and a father, or by thrusting one’s children into artificial and transient relationships with a string of ‘aunties’ and ‘uncles’? Surely the answer is obvious?

This alone should suffice to quash the demands of the Sodomites’ League for the same adoption rights as proper opposite-sex couples. But let’s have a look at a few of their other arguments. One is that very few children will be affected anyway. And indeed, given that there are only something like 27000 de facto same-sex ‘married’ couples in Australia (source), there couldn’t be more than a few thousand children affected (and probably more like a few hundred I suspect). But a single child immersed in such a spiritually toxic environment is one child too many.

Another argument is that the State should really only concern itself with keeping the public peace anyway; it shouldn’t intervene in private family matters. This is, of course, the cornerstone of liberalism, and is to be rejected accordingly as false and absurd. And it raises the question, which I have been asking for some time now, of where do these same-sex adoption rights advocates draw the line, and why? By their own lights, limiting the number of parents to two is every bit as arbitrary as limiting parenthood to motherhood and fatherhood. So if we’re going to be ‘arbitrary’ one way or another, why not pick the model of parenting, however ‘arbitrary’ and ‘heteronormative’ it might be, that aims for a stable, enduring presence of role models from both sexes?

It should also be noted that same-sex and opposite-sex couples are by no means equal in all other respects anyway. Remember that same-sex couples are going to be more likely to suffer sexually-transmissible infections, more likely to involve domestic violence, more likely to involve mental problems, more likely to involve drug abuse, the relationships tend to have shorter durations …

Yet another argument in favour of such law reform is that it would only be recognising the way things already are. But are these people really so naïve as to think that, by eliminating present barriers, it will not encourage more same-sex couples to acquire children?

But perhaps the more significant long-term consequence of the success of such a proposal is one that has me marveling at the cunning of the strategists in the Sodomites’ League, a cunning apparently heightened, not diminished, by their immersion in their cesspool of corruption. The consequence I’m thinking of is this: once the Government has legislated to give same-sex couples the same adoption rights as opposite-sex couples, how can it possibly continue to justify its refusal to permit so called gay marriage? For the Sodomites’ League will be able to turn the tables on pro-family forces and demand to know how can they deny ‘marriage’ to same-sex couples when, as the pro-family movement argues (rightly, of course), it is the family based on marriage that produces the best outcomes for children. Mark my words: if this proposal is successful, it will be a strategic masterstroke by which the Sodomites’ League will ultimately achieve ‘gay marriage’ by the back door. So it would not surprise me at all if the children are nothing more than pawns in this game of strategy in which the Sodomites’ League vies for the mainstream acceptance—nay more, the mainstream celebration—that it so craves (a craving which, I can only infer, arises from their all-consuming narcissism). And if you doubt the Sodmites’ League’s capacity to sacrifice the well-being of others in pursuit of its quest to be liked, recall the disastrous effects of the Red Cross caving in, before the truth about A.I.D.S. was apparent, to the demands of militant gays for practising homosexuals to be allowed to give blood, documented by Mr. Piers Akerman in his column in the Sydney Daily Telegraph a few years ago (unfortunately not available on-line).

Reginaldvs Cantvar
Feast of St. Blaise, Bishop, Martyr, A.D. 2009