I’m sometimes amazed that illogical arguments can be made to justify nonsensical beliefs that discriminate against others while still keeping a straight face.
Take the issue of same-sex couples adopting children. Now, in most of Australia same-sex couples can foster children, and in actual fact gays and lesbians who are single can actually adopt, but in several states, including my own, adoption is a strict no-no to same-sex couples.
Thankfully, the NSW Parliament is at least preparing to revisit this issue, but predictably the churches have jumped in and decried this. In Sydney Morning Herald’s article, “Churches Push Gay Adoption Ban“, (Louise Hall, April 7 2010), we’re told:
The chief executive of Anglicare, Peter Kell, cites a child’s need for both a mother and father among the 11 reasons why same-sex couples should not be given the same rights as heterosexual couples under adoption law.
”Men and women complement each other in their parenting roles as a result of their inherent physical, psychological and emotional attributes. Adoptive children should not be denied this opportunity,” Mr Kell said.
Now, I don’t pretend to know what the other 10 reasons are for why the churches oppose adoption by same sex couples, but I’m guessing they’re just as full of shit as this reason.
Yes, full of shit. I’m being blunt because this just annoys the hell out of me.
Can you spot the huge gaping hole in this argument? There’s a convoy of trucks being driven side-by-side through it, so it’s a little difficult to miss, yet it constantly gets brought up as an argument on these issues…
This argument denies the possibility that single parents (e.g., widowed, or separated where one parent is no longer involved in child rearing) are incapable of raising children. You can’t have one without the other. You can’t say that children raised by a same-sex couple won’t get the correct gender balance when it’s obvious children raised by a single parent would fail to pass the same criteria.
So why don’t we see the people making these arguments campaign for state-forced adoption of any child of a single parent?
And if gender balance is so important, why don’t children whose parents don’t fully provide gender balance also be forced out for adoption? You know, the dad might have a drawer of lingerie he wears, or the mum might wear overalls on the weekend while she tinkers on a motorbike because she’s always been interested in them!
Would some gay or lesbian couples make bad parents? Undoubtedly. But these would be weeded out during the adoption process the same way any other couples are weeded out. It’s not as if anyone can just walk up to an orphanage and collect a kid from a dispenser! When I commented on how much this argument annoys me on Facebook, a friend responded thusly:
What annoys me the most is this example from my trip home on CityRail the other evening:
A drunk father, in his mid 40’s, dressed like a complete ‘bum’ (to use a better word). In tow, was his beautiful 4 yr old son.. whom you could see actually thought the world of his dad (which is why I started tearing up inside). As my journey home progressed, I noticed the dad walking between the carriages.. showing an increased level in anxiety as well as further signs he must have been consuming more alcohol on the train.
He had ‘lost’ his son! (well that’s what he was screaming when he forced the train to stop). In fact, his son was sitting quietly, sort of in a subdued way in the same seat his dad left him in when he got ‘lost in his own state of mind’
Eventually the ‘grey’ police arrived to look after the boy, and take the father into their control. I actually cried on my way to my car.( I could not help but think of my own son, and how the ‘ovary lottery’ can be so unjust ) 🙁
I was on my way to Fairfield station … and the father ‘thought’ he was on the intercity train heading to Newcastle, where he was intending to travel with his son.
AND he is allowed to breed, and have the birth rights to be a father as he is heterosexual, when I have so many LBGT friends who wish to give such children as this little boy, the love and upbringing he/she deserves!!
Sadly, there’s not enough people with his attitude around!
The fact of the matter is that if you want to convince people that there are solid, valid arguments for why people shouldn’t be allowed to do something, you should make watertight arguments. Presenting emotive, blatantly incorrect and illogical statements as “reasons” really does leave anyone with a lick of logic with one of only two choices: is the person making the argument stupid, or malicious?
Someone bring me another Hanlon’s Razor please!