Paul von Dadelszen Acting Principal Family Court Judge thinks that gay people should be allowed to adopt children.
Society has changed he says using the Civil Unions Act as a justification for this assertion and that it is discrimination to not allow gay couples to adopt children.
Bringing up children isn't a right! It is a duty and a heavy responsibility.
The Liberal elite have done incredible damage to the family over the past thirty odd years and are we better off for it?
No way - a lot of people have been severely damaged by these peoples noble experiments and odd notions of "rights" and no notion what-so-ever of "responsibilities".
I have no idea why the Good Lord created men and women but whatever his reason it is apparent to all but liberals that it takes one of each to create a child and no activist judge can alter that fact.
Children do best if they have in their lives strong adult role models, one of each gender and preferably both being biologically related to them.
This is not rocket science folks
Society has changed he says using the Civil Unions Act as a justification for this assertion and that it is discrimination to not allow gay couples to adopt children.
Bringing up children isn't a right! It is a duty and a heavy responsibility.
The Liberal elite have done incredible damage to the family over the past thirty odd years and are we better off for it?
No way - a lot of people have been severely damaged by these peoples noble experiments and odd notions of "rights" and no notion what-so-ever of "responsibilities".
I have no idea why the Good Lord created men and women but whatever his reason it is apparent to all but liberals that it takes one of each to create a child and no activist judge can alter that fact.
Children do best if they have in their lives strong adult role models, one of each gender and preferably both being biologically related to them.
This is not rocket science folks
Can't individuals apply to adopt children anyway? I suspect the proposed law change is largely irrelevant.
ReplyDeleteNo Zen only married couples can adopt, getting legal custody is another matter.
ReplyDeleteAnd it is probably academic - adoption is very uncommon in this day and age, with the DPB and all.
The real issue is the concept that having a child is a right you can demand, rather than a responsibilty you share with a person who you have committed to for the purpose of raising your biological offspring together as a team.
ReplyDeleteThe real issue is the concept that having a child is a right you can demand, rather than a responsibilty you share with a person who you have committed to for the purpose of raising your biological offspring together as a team.
So you're against all adoptions? Or just to gay parents?
No adoption is a necessary thing when kids don't have parents - it beats keeping them in an institution.
ReplyDeleteBut adopted kids don't do as well as biological kids as a rule - they start behind the eight-ball.
Anecdotally all the ones I am aware of from when I grew up have had major issues in adulthood.
That being said the famous American General Jumping Jim Gavin was adopted - but then again he ran away from home and found the army declaring himself an orphan in order to enlist.
I think the judge also included de facto couples in the revised list.
ReplyDeleteHere's the page from CYF about adoption. It certainly implies a single person can apply for adoption. How confusing. Is this like the abortion laws that are routinely ignored?
Adoption in NZ
Like lowering the age of sexual consent to 12, state endorsed polygamy and euthanasia, I'm afraid the progressive intelligentsia have already come to a decision in favour on our behalf... whether we like it or not.
ReplyDeleteNo adoption is a necessary thing when kids don't have parents - it beats keeping them in an institution.
ReplyDeleteOK, so if there are children that need to be adopted then why shouldn't gay couples do the adopting?
Why stop there? Why not single people; why not de facto couples; why not anyone who will take a child?
ReplyDeleteIs a better question that if a person or persons are willing to adopt a child should they have a choice on what sex, age and race the child is? What if they had to accept which ever child was available, sight unseen?
Should a potential parent be able to discriminate?
Should people who smoke be allowed to adopt? Apparently in England, that's a bigger no-no than being single, gay, disabled or ancient.
ReplyDeleteIs living with a loving smoker worse than being left to rot in an adoption agency?
Gay couples tend not to be monogamous, nor do they tend to stay together long, nor do they have a particularly long lifespan, nor do they adequately prepare a child to be a balanced person capable of raising a family themselves.
ReplyDeleteA child is not a pet.
Gay couples who need someone to love should adopt a dog.
This is a story from 2005 -
ReplyDelete"In an important vote which has not yet been reported here, New Zealand this week disassociated itself from a major declaration on the family and marriage adopted by the United Nations; probably the most significant in two decades.
The declaration, known as the Doha Declaration for the Family was drawn up by representatives of governments and NGOs who met in Doha, Qatar, at the end of November for the Doha International Conference for the Family.
It affirms that "the family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to the widest possible protection and assistance by society and the State."
Unofficially, 132 of the 192 countries adopted the declaration without reservation at the UN General Assembly in New York on Tuesday. In supporting the declaration, Member States also agreed to "uphold, preserve and defend the institution of marriage." Unfortunately, New Zealand was not one of these countries, therefore 'civil unions come as no surprise.
The move from New Zealand to distance itself from the declaration is deeply ironic, as in every other respect the government is desperate to align New Zealand to UN declarations and conventions."
Yep, sounds like us....
I am appalled that the ideological driven Family Court could comprehend this wayward agenda for homosexuals at a time when the principal Family Court Judge Peter Boshier and NZ Families Commission neglects the plight of increasingly large number of forced male clients of the Family Court who commit suicide do to the unfair adversarial litigation process of the gender bias cuss court of evil. 300 men commit suicide each year in the land of milk and honey, meanwhile TV’s ads made a mockery of real men. Great to see the scum Family Court has got its priorities right! The Family Court is sick place where gravy train leeches change social policy and crush normal males who aren’t shirt lifters homosexuals’. Look Susan has two dads and no mum said wee Johnny who had two mums and no dad. Where is the double barrel Mr. Normal Father? What has happened to the traditional kiwi family? The sisterhood has destroyed the moral backbone of this country and it’s time to fight back against such EVIL! Poor kids deserve better from a sick sad society.
ReplyDeleteAnd for some yellow back judge to say that "it's in the child's best interests" is demented rubbish.
ReplyDeleteWhat a sick country. Tome to fix it and make it better for balanced children!
Lucia Maria quote:
ReplyDelete"Gay couples tend not to be monogamous, nor do they tend to stay together long, nor do they have a particularly long lifespan, nor do they adequately prepare a child to be a balanced person capable of raising a family themselves.
A child is not a pet.
Gay couples who need someone to love should adopt a dog."
That candid post was utterly politically incorrect and will warrant scorn by the PC pseudo-liberal progressive establishment. I loved it, it speaks the truth.
Yes, I think Lucia likes provoking fiery discussion!
ReplyDeleteI suspect she would also be against a single heterosexual male adopting a child that has he has no biological connection with. As a general rule, I think I would be too.
Why stop there?
ReplyDeleteDon't. Unless there is a good reason to, then stop.
Despite Lucia's screed the available evidence says that children do best when they have two parents and the children of gay couples have no more (or less) behavioural or psychological problems than the children of straight couples. Given that evidence why let straight couples adopt but not gay ones?
It's been astounding as to how effective homosexual political activism has been in the last 25 years. Read this:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.leaderu.com/jhs/socarides.html
theatavism - not what this report says. It also says that of the six main studies so far "that the vast majority are either homosexuals themselves, or active in the gay-rights movement. Into this category fall all six of the six most prominent psychologists of the American Psychological Association, which, unsurprisingly is one of the organizations most strongly and vocally in favour of homosexual adoption."
ReplyDeleteHere's the whole article -
-----
EXPERTS WORLDWIDE FIND GAY ADOPTION HARMFUL FOR CHILDREN
MADRID, Spain (LifeSiteNews.com) – In light of a pending vote in the Spanish Senate on same-sex marriage HazteOir, together with the Spanish Forum for the Family and the Institute for Family Policy, has published and distributed an in-depth report on the effects that being raised by same-sex parents has on a child. The report, entitled “Report on Infantile Development in Same-Sex Couples” and available only in Spanish at this time, gathers and compares information from a vast number of studies carried out on the issue.
HazteOir, concerned by the apparent unquestioning acceptance in Spain of homosexual adoption, hopes that the wide array of information provided in the report and its extensive bibliography will prove to the Senate that homosexual parentage is harmful for children.
The president of HazteOir stated, in light of the findings of the report: “In no way can a couple of persons of the same sex be judged suitable for adopting a child. Considering the findings of this vast bibliography we are obliged to protect the minor and say that same-sex couples must not be allowed to adopt children.”
The report contests that the majority of the studies carried out which have concluded in favour of same-sex parenthood betray an egregious lack of scientific rigour. Most of the studies show a strong bias to one side.
To prove this the report analyzes the nature of the individuals who have been responsible for the various studies carried out thus far, demonstrating that the vast majority are either homosexuals themselves, or active in the gay-rights movement. Into this category fall all six of the six most prominent psychologists of the American Psychological Association, which, unsurprisingly is one of the organizations most strongly and vocally in favour of homosexual adoption.
In compiling and comparing the available data from these studies, as well as more objective studies, the team of first-class psychologists and sociologists which penned the HazteOir report have noted prominent and disturbing trends.
Among children raised by same-sex couples, the report notes a significant increase in low self-esteem, stress, confusion regarding sexual identity, an increase in mental illness, drug use, promiscuity, STD’s, and homosexual behaviour, amongst others. Furthermore, the report shows that statistics have brought to light the fact that same-sex relationships betray a much higher instance of separation and break-up than heterosexual relationships, increasing the likelihood that the child will experience familial instability.
The Spanish Association of Pediatrics firmly backs up the findings of the report, stating that a “family nucleus with two fathers or two mothers is clearly dangerous for the child”.
View the Spanish-language report at:
http://www.fides.org/spa/approfondire/2005/spagna_noesigual.html
View the “Agenzio Fides” coverage at:
http://www.fides.org/eng/news/2005/0505/25_4993.html
Hey judge how come you behind bench with protection order in place against you? Don't worry lad,I just make poofters mum and dad and all sweet.
ReplyDeleteWhat a sick country!~!
not what this report says. It also says that of the six main studies so far "that the vast majority are either homosexuals themselves, or active in the gay-rights movement
ReplyDeleteSo you have an anti-gay rights group publishing a study complaining that some of the earlier studies where published by pro-gay rights researchers? You didn't feel the slightest cognitive dissonance in posting that.
Without reading the original paper you're left with their assertion that there are scientific errors in all the other papers, which is isn't exactly overwhelming evidence. There is nice overview of the evidence here
Zen is correct about single people being able to adopt, as seen on the the CYFS webpage he linked to:
ReplyDelete"Birth parents ultimately choose the couple (or person) who they consider will be most appropriate for their child."
My views:
* de facto couples have chosen to not commit to each other, why trust their profession of commitment to adopted children?
* it is scientific impossibility for gay couples to have children, so why break a law of nature to give them a child? Also, if you are gay, where do you get that - strictly heterosexual - biological urge to procreate from?
* single people should not be able to adopt either. CYF state that after adoption:
"the child’s legal status becomes “as if born” to the adoptive parents."
So how could an adopted child be "as if born" to a single person? It take 2 to tango...
My 2 cents worth...
ZT said: "Why stop there? Why not single people; why not de facto couples; why not anyone who will take a child?"
ReplyDeleteGay, defacto, single - while I agree with most of what squaredrive said in his comment just above, I would prefer a child to be adopted by such types than to be aborted. Apparently there were only 12 adoptions in NZ in 2008. Unbelievable. Why aren't we (as a society) focussing on encouring mothers wanting abortion to instead give the child up to adoption? Even if the child does not have the ideal family to grow up in, it is a hell of a lot better than no life at all. A very real chance at opportunity is better than no opportunity at all. Remember it is the Farrars and the like who use the 'bad family' excuse as some sort of justification for abortion. And of course it is a cop out. Therefore I certainly support gay couples as adoptive parents if it means less abortions (though first step of course is to make adoption easier for receiving parents, and encouraged to those seeking abortion).
Sean,
ReplyDeleteBased on your last comment, I'm curious about something.
Even if the child does not have the ideal family to grow up in, it is a hell of a lot better than no life at all. A very real chance at opportunity is better than no opportunity at all.
Would you support the reintroduction of slavery if it meant less abortions? Say if children could be sold to a family as a servant once they were old enough, or even raised by a family for such an end - would you support that? After all, as you say, a change at life is better than no chance at all ...
I don't see that example as consistent with my comment. Are you suggesting life being raised by gay, single or de facto parents is akin to a life of slavery? If you are, then put this out there first.
ReplyDeleteHowever if it is an extreme abitrary example not related to the topic of this post then I should point out that I said 'chance at opportunity', not 'chance at life'. It is arguable that a life of slavery presents no chance of opportunity. Nonetheless it is a interesting question. How far do you push the scenario where it becomes better and better to not exist at all? I need to put myself in the position of the subject. The devil is in the detail of course. What will the life be like etc... I know I would alwys try to give life the green light, but if it included a life of torture, I might have to pass on that one!