As a gay man who is not averse to a little fling now and again, I can not be accused of either being in the closet or anti-gay. However, the idea of gay couples, or anyone else for that matter, having a "right" to adopt strikes me as peculiar.
Nobody has a natural "right" to a child, but the notion that they do has led us to this, as well as the use of peculiar reproductive techniques - there is a lesbian woman I know who has had a child through artificial insemination, which is just as bad; not having both parents is a bad enough misfortune if it happens through natural causes, so it cannot be right to deliberately engineer the situation.
Adoption is principally for the benefit of the child and it is for the rest of society to do its best to make sure that the child is placed in the best possible circumstances. And providing a home for a child, whether one's own or anyone else's, is a long-term business. So the likely stability of the relationship is an important factor. Now I know that there are many same-sex couples who have been together for thirty years or more, which is a lot longer than many marriages, but this kind of stability is unusual.
There are other factors too. Men and women are different and children need both a male and a female parent as a role model. There is also the reaction of peers, at school, for instance, to consider. How will classmates treat someone with two mums or two dads? They could get a rough time.
On the other hand, there may be circumstances where adoption by a gay couple may be the best option available. So why legislate at all? Surely the people in the adoption agencies can be relied on to use their common sense. One has to ask what is the government's real agenda is on this? Why is it pushing this nonsense? After all, if people want a companion to make a fuss of, why don't they go the the local animal rescue centre?
Although I am no fan of Cardinal O'Connor, I am pleased to see he is standing up to the government.
Cardinal's statement on gay adoption
Nobody has a natural "right" to a child, but the notion that they do has led us to this, as well as the use of peculiar reproductive techniques - there is a lesbian woman I know who has had a child through artificial insemination, which is just as bad; not having both parents is a bad enough misfortune if it happens through natural causes, so it cannot be right to deliberately engineer the situation.
Adoption is principally for the benefit of the child and it is for the rest of society to do its best to make sure that the child is placed in the best possible circumstances. And providing a home for a child, whether one's own or anyone else's, is a long-term business. So the likely stability of the relationship is an important factor. Now I know that there are many same-sex couples who have been together for thirty years or more, which is a lot longer than many marriages, but this kind of stability is unusual.
There are other factors too. Men and women are different and children need both a male and a female parent as a role model. There is also the reaction of peers, at school, for instance, to consider. How will classmates treat someone with two mums or two dads? They could get a rough time.
On the other hand, there may be circumstances where adoption by a gay couple may be the best option available. So why legislate at all? Surely the people in the adoption agencies can be relied on to use their common sense. One has to ask what is the government's real agenda is on this? Why is it pushing this nonsense? After all, if people want a companion to make a fuss of, why don't they go the the local animal rescue centre?
Although I am no fan of Cardinal O'Connor, I am pleased to see he is standing up to the government.
Cardinal's statement on gay adoption
Kommentarer