Slog

News & Arts

The Stranger Suggests

Critics' Best Bets
Music Arts & Food


Line Out

Music & the City
at Night

Wednesday, February 25, 2009

Every Child Deserves a Mother and a Father

Posted by on Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 2:02 PM

Christians in Australia opposed to allowing same-sex couples to adopt—single gay people can already adopt in Australia—are questioning the motives of gay or lesbian people that want to adopt. Homos seek to adopt "children as trophies for their own agenda," says the Australian Christian Lobby. Maybe the question they ought to be asking about gay adoption is this: can gay parents can remember to feed their children? And refrain from abusing them? To death?

 

Comments (28) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
1
Because hetero Christians never use children as trophies for their own agendas. Nope, in no way do they use kids for the adults' means.
Posted by EmilyP on February 25, 2009 at 2:08 PM
2
And will a Gay Aussie parent ever utter "A dingo ate my baby!"?
Posted by G'Day, Mate! on February 25, 2009 at 2:08 PM
3
"children as trophies for their own agenda,"

And unless you're in dire need of farmhands, what is the heterosexual reason for children again?

The biological urge to care for children doesn't end because you're gay any more than it would if you were infertile. Most importantly though, the government doesn't have any business deciphering your subconscious agenda, its only role is to do it's best to be sure children are going to good homes.
Posted by Dougsf on February 25, 2009 at 2:12 PM
4
Yeah, that woman with the 14 kids would never think of them as trophies. She's breeding for God, or something.
Posted by very bad homo on February 25, 2009 at 2:20 PM
5
@4 - If I recall, she said she wanted to fill the void inside her. Or something. Which is definitely better than using them as trophies.
Posted by Julie in Eugene on February 25, 2009 at 2:29 PM
6
Remember, these people are descended from the most undesirable elements of English society. So, fuck 'em.
Posted by laterite on February 25, 2009 at 2:31 PM
7
Dan,
I agree. Nothing should preclude a capable and law-abiding gay man or woman from adopting a child.

However, what's your take on surrogate parenthood (ie. womb rental, egg donation, ready-to-make babies with particular traits that the parents choose for straight or gay people)? I admit, I'm greatly uncomfortable with it.

@4
Agree. Ms. Suliman is an irresponsible parent. She's as irresponsible as that fellow from Everett, WA who sired 13 children before he reached 30 y/o. Both behaviors are contemptible and the situations tragic (I can't imagine what any of these children will be like once they hit adolescence). Seems like reproduction is like taste, there's no accounting for it.
Posted by lark on February 25, 2009 at 2:42 PM
8
'trophy child'

Hit a nerve, Dan?
Posted by I'm listening . . . . on February 25, 2009 at 2:47 PM
9
I once had an Australian and used her as a trophy.
Posted by The Amazing Jim on February 25, 2009 at 2:49 PM
10
@6, way to go to perpetuate obsolete bullshit. Oz is mostly populated by more recent immigrants.
and just in case you think all of use are homophobic nutbags, don't forget Father Kennedy in Brisbane who is being fired by the hierarchy for being open minded.

http://www.theage.com.au/national/priest…

I know Jocelyn has posted this story already, but it is one of the few good ones coming out of this country at the moment.
Posted by ozchick on February 25, 2009 at 2:55 PM
11
OK, so there are, like, three liberals in Oz, alright. Everyone I've ever met from there has been so rabidly ultra-conservative I can't even stand to be in the same room with them.
Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty on February 25, 2009 at 3:17 PM
12
In order to see how unsupported these views are you need to understand that the word liberal in the context of this quote:

"Liberal MP John Ajaka also questioned the group's stance on protecting the nuclear family."

In Australia Liberal with a capital 'L' means Conservative (the Liberals are the main conservative party in the country).

New South Wales is one of the least conservative states in the country and I think if you read the rest of the quote you will see that even the conservatives are against the Christian Lobby bull.

"Not all children today are raised by a mother or father. Many are raised ... by one parent only. Many are raised by a grandmother and a grandfather," Mr Ajaka said.

"You've got children who have been adopted by a single person and that person may be gay or lesbian.

"How can you put that together with your concept that the normal family is a man and a woman in a loving relationship when that really does not exist today."

Posted by Malcolm in Sydney on February 25, 2009 at 4:03 PM
13
@11 where the helll do you get off calling all Australians ultra-conservative?

Before you go on your little 'I live in an amazingly open-minded country' rant, might I suggest that you have a look at things like 'Don't ask, Don't tell', in your own country and compare that to the fact that for 15 years gays & lesbians have not only openly served in our military, but also march in the Sydney gay & Lesbian Parade in uniform every year.

When was the last time a member of the US Supreme court made a public stand to ensure that their same sex partner was accorded the same rights as his heterosexual colleagues? http://www.abc.net.au/sundayprofile/stor…

I suspect that the reason that you meet the sort of rabidly ultra-conservative Australians (OZ is the name of a fictional country and a TV Prison) is because you hang out in places where those sorts of people hang out.

Don’t you dare tar 25 million people (minus three according to you) with your personal impressions of them, which are no doubt based on three fifths of 25% of two thirds of fuck-all.
Posted by Malcolm in Sydney on February 25, 2009 at 4:09 PM
14
@11 and even better your name links through to the National Rifle Association.

WTF?????
Posted by Malcolm in Sydney on February 25, 2009 at 4:10 PM
15
I would also add: can gays refrain from practices that lead to disease.

Answer is no of course, but gays do want to have their cake and eat it too.

Most gays I know don't care about children because having kids is something opposed to the lifestyle they want to pursue. The only ones I have heard saying they want gay parenting to be legal are the agitators. Trophy is the best description I've heard so far for how they view those kids.

I bet that if they ever succeed in what they want those kids will neglected in favor of the more enticing "sexual freedoms" and the party scene.
Posted by Loveschild on February 25, 2009 at 5:27 PM
16
#15 - If you're being honest, you're probably hanging around too many 21 year olds.
Posted by Dougsf on February 25, 2009 at 5:59 PM
17
Loveschild, you're a horrible troll. Try harder.

Most gays I know care deeply about children and many cherish as their deepest goal becoming a parent one day. Their reasons may be to make their parents proud grandparents, to create a loving household, or simply to experience the joy and wonder of a new person experiencing the world for the first time.

And since when are sexual freedoms, disease-spreading practices, and the party scene the sole realm of the gays? There are plenty of gays who are homebodies and who are uninterested in anything but a committed relationship. There are plenty of straights out drinking every night.

Next round!
Posted by lymerae on February 25, 2009 at 6:06 PM
18
Did anyone see the typo in the article on the Griffins located under the photo?

"district courthouse in Baltimore Cunty"

*giggles*
Posted by Mr.Designer on February 25, 2009 at 6:12 PM
19
Huh. A three year old starved to death. Made me wonder how long after you had the kid you would have to stop feeding it for it to live that long. I mean, they had to feed it for a while. I wonder when they stopped.
Posted by idaho on February 25, 2009 at 6:20 PM
20
One of these days, they're going to lose interest and give up on making it so gay couples can't adopt.
Posted by kuribo on February 25, 2009 at 6:33 PM
21
gay buttsex
Posted by you forget to add more gay buttsex to this post on February 25, 2009 at 7:23 PM
22
@11,

I'm an Australian and I agree that millions of Australians are ultra-conservative. Of course, millions aren't. I'd be surprised if the percentages were that much different to the US, where millions of people are ultra-conservative and millions aren't.

I wish more people in my country were tolerant and understanding of people who are different from themselves, and lots of people in my country feel the same way. I'm guessing you feel the same way about your country.

Basically, the world has way too many bigots. I live in Brisbane, "Queensland" (unfortunately the name refers to the wrong kind of queen), which excruciatingly is one of the more conservative states in Australia. (I've never been to Seattle but from my frequent reading of The Stranger it seems like more my style, but what are you going to do?) Still, I try everyday to make Queensland a little bit less conservative than it was the day before. At the moment I'm struggling, but I'm certainly not alone...
Posted by steve on February 25, 2009 at 7:31 PM
23
Lovechild @ 15,

You seem to thrive on presumption. As a scientist, I'd like to know what "disease" you presume only gays can become infected with? If it's AIDS or HIV don't go there, see that is what I and the rest of the team researched. See viruses, bacteria, parasites, and fungi don't give a damn about their hosts sexual orientation. Any person having unprotected sex, is at risk. Second, stop presuming that you know people's hearts, just because you know some homosexuals who don't want to be married or be parents. You aren't omniscient.
Posted by kim in portland (formerly just kim) on February 25, 2009 at 10:21 PM
24
@15 I don't buy it - you don't know any gay people.
Posted by Homowillinherit on February 25, 2009 at 10:50 PM
25
The "Christian" agenda: bearing false witness against their neighbors. Oh, and keeping children from having loving homes. Anytime you let "Christians" set public policy, delusional as they are, you will see damage to people's lives and to society as a whole.
Posted by Vince on February 26, 2009 at 7:18 AM
26
Let those horrible, heterosexual 'parents' be the straw that breaks the camels back for those who have put up with the 'everyone is entitled to their own opinion' line for too long.

Being gay doesn't make you immoral.
Being straight doesn't make you a good parent.

The bible is pretty clear about homosexuality. It's a sin. The crackpots aren't making things up when they say 'God hates fags'. There is only one moral position on this one: Either the bible is wrong or God is wrong. Anyone who has an 'open mind' on these issues is an idiot.
Posted by Nicole on February 26, 2009 at 11:51 AM
27
@ 26,

You ever tried reading the Bible in it's original language, ancient Greek and ancient Hebrew? There is no such word for homosexuality, homosexual and homosexuality are English words and they first appeared in the Bible in 1946. Those seven verses that they love to quote, never say homosexuality is a sin, or even that anal sex is a sin. In both the ancient Greek and Hebrew, the words used for laying with a man as with a woman, turning from natural desire to unnatural desire, they do refer to sexual sins, just not homosexuality. They refer to rape, pederasty, straight individuals having sex with other straight individuals for at temples for fertility rites, prostitution, and a man acting like a woman. So, I would argue that the crackpots are misquoting scripture with their 'God hates Fags'. FACT: Jesus never says anything for or against homosexuality. And if Christians are going to ask themselves what would Jesus do, they can just follow what he did. In Matthew 8:5-13 and Luke 7:1-10, Jesus is approached by a Roman Centurian who wants him to come heal his slave, in Greek the Centurian is seeking help for his catamite or sex slave who he is very fond of. Did Jesus tell him he hated fags, no he offered to come to the Centurian's house and heal the young man. In the end, Jesus didn't go to the Centurian's house, because the Centurian said it wasn't necessary. The Bible records that Jesus commended the Centurian for his faith, healed the young man, and never said a word for or against their relationship. Don't believe me? Try reading it in its original languages for yourself.
Posted by kim in portland (formerly just kim) on February 26, 2009 at 1:37 PM
28
I hope those murders fucking die.
Posted by Aiko on February 27, 2009 at 9:11 PM

Add a comment

Advertisement
 

All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact Info | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy