Menu lock

Catherine Sheehan

Jun 18, 2010

Widowers raise kids badly

I presume there's a limit to what the Herald Sun will publish. I choose to believe that they'd reject some racist rant submitted by a white power group, or a vicious diatribe d

I presume there’s a limit to what the Herald Sun will publish. I choose to believe that they’d reject some racist rant submitted by a white power group, or a vicious diatribe declaring that people of a particular religious background make inadequate parents.

So why on Earth did they print this nasty and bigoted screed by Catherine Sheehan?

I could not help feeling sad when I watched the TV scenario of the baby girl adopted by the gay couple on the TV show Modern Family.

The little girl represents many who will never know the joy of being snuggled in their mothers’ arms. Sure, she will have two dads who can perform many of the functions that a mother can, but even 20 loving and caring dads could never make up for not having a mum…

Why would anyone want to rob a child of the wonderful experience of having a mum? All those little, everyday things my mother did that I used to take for granted but that I now look back on with fondness: mum waiting to pick us up after school, mum cooking our favourite meals, mum listening to our problems. To all these tasks, a mother brings a uniquely feminine approach.

Yeah, dads are inadequate at picking kids up from school, or cooking favourite meals, or listening to problems. How could a man do these things? Wouldn’t he always be tripping over his penis? How could he listen to problems without a pair of breasts? Catherine undoubtedly can’t define what this “feminine approach” specifically entails, because any aspect she could name could promptly be shown to be able to be done just as well by a parent of either gender. Can anyone name any specific thing, after breastfeeding, that one gender of parent can do that another can’t? She couldn’t.

Sheehan, who the end of the article reveals that she “is employed by the Catholic Archdiocese of Melbourne” – presumably their Crushing Equality For Gays Department – is using the following construction to attempt to use parents’ love for their own children to encourage them to support discrimination against other people’s:

  1. Play on mothers’ vanity (you’re special, aren’t you? What you offer the kids is different from what their father offers them, isn’t it?)
  2. Your kids would do terribly without you, wouldn’t they?
  3. Children of gay dads don’t have mothers so it’s JUST LIKE IF YOU WERE RIPPED AWAY FROM YOUR CHILDREN.

Of course, every parent is special regardless of their gender, and what any particular mother brings is different to what any particular father brings not because of her gender but because she’s an individual adult with a unique approach to raising her own children. It’s kind of insulting to mothers to suggest that the strength of their bond with their children is down to their particular set of genitals, rather than anything they do as parents with a brain.

But Catherine’s appeal isn’t to those thinking rationally – it’s to those who have never actually known a gay couple (one of the reasons this Modern Family show so angers the Catholic Archdiocese, I suspect) and therefore can only approach the issue by reference to the heterosexual families they know. Taking any parent out of a family would hurt it: but, of course, that’s not what gay parents would be doing. And there’s no reason why two dads couldn’t have as varied and valuable approaches to raising children as any heterosexual couple. At the very least, you know that every gay couple has had to work very hard to have children – they’re not having them by accident like many heterosexual couples. (Particularly the ones who follow the Catholic Archdiocese’s rule that once a foetus is conceived it’s a human being who must be born whether you’re ready to be a parent or not.)

Her Mothers’ Day appeal is particularly bizarre:

This is precisely why Mother’s Day is so special. Why do we shower our mums with presents and flowers? If a man can be a substitute for a mum, then Mother’s Day would be meaningless.

If you support treating gay couples equally, you hate Mother’s Day, you monster. Why won’t anyone think of the Hallmark corporation?

Catherine obviously doesn’t care that her article is hurtful to any children being raised by single fathers who are being told that their parental relationships are second-rate, just because of the gender of their remaining parent. Listen, you little snots, you are lesser people and your parents are RUINING YOUR LIFE. Classmates? Make sure you let all the kids of single parents know how much their families suck. She claims to be concerned about the rights of the children affected, but she doesn’t care about smearing them and their families through arrogant, empty assumptions and stereotypes.

I wonder if we’ll see a similar article next week as to why kids raised by two mums are missing out. Prepare for some empty – and unspecified – assertions about what a father brings to parenting that a mother cannot, simply because he has a penis.

I don’t think Catherine Sheehan has finished embarrassing herself quite yet. And, sadly, I don’t think the Herald Sun has finished enjoying the page hits it gets out of it.

We recommend

From around the web

Powered by Taboola

141 comments

141 thoughts on “Widowers raise kids badly

  1. Gay dads and backfiring RSPT campaigns « An Onymous Lefty

    […] Widowers’ raise kids badly, a retort to Catherine Sheehan’s hateful diatribe in the Hun about gay fathers being an insult to children and mothers; and […]

  2. theantichrist

    @ confessions

    Perfectly summarised. Well done!!

    I will simply add that the ONLY downside of same-sex parenting is the unfortunate and unnecessary psychological impact on the children caused by the spread of fear and hatred by such loathsome bigots as Iain and his fellow evil disciples and their, no doubt, equally-deluded brainwashed children. Wipe out this scourge on our society and there is NO difference. And that’s what our anti-discrimination laws are all about.

    Great article, Jeremy.

    Case closed.

  3. confessions

    [the reality of biology that it takes a man and a woman to make children.]

    Yes. But the argument is about optimal environments for *raising* children, not creating them. Just because a same-sex union can’t biologically produce children, it doesn’t invalidate that union as being able to provide a healthy, loving and nurturing environment for rearing children.

    Oh dear, it seems I was right about iain: with the failure of all his other bigoted assertions to be convincing, let alone credible, his next bluster point now seems to be that good parenting skills are biologically determined. What a goose!

  4. oldskool

    Speaking as a parent, Iain is talking out of his arse. And I would appreciate him not making generalizations that include me in his bigoted small minded club.

  5. theantichrist

    @ Iain

    I have no idea what your totally nonsensical reply to me @ 89 even means. I guess this is symptomatic of the mind of someone who hears voices and sees invisible little friends too, huh? Come on, admit it, Iain. Your quill is guided by other spooky supernatural forces, yeah? Have they told you to kill your first-born yet?

    Or are you actually trying to say that monogamy means one is only EVER allowed to have one partner (obviously a female) their entire life? Geez, that’s pushing the envelope a bit far isn’t? Read my post again and maybe you’ll see that I fully answered your question on monogamy.

    After you have read it again, please book yourself into a psychiatric clinic immediately as having people like you on the streets is a definite threat to the wellbeing of our children (regardless of whether they are from hetero, gay or bi parentage).

    Thanks BobJ err RobJ err whoever for clearing up the name point as well as the very simple fact that bisexuality or homosexuality does NOT automatically equal bigamy as our deluded friend Iain appears to believe… or at least the voices tell him to believe.

  6. Iain Hall

    OK B.Tolputt #94, here is a point by point rebuttal of Jeremy’s argument 😉

    {No – aside from pasting slabs of the post that is already visible above, if you want to write a blog post then you can do it at your own blog and not in our comments thread – Tobby}

    Sheehan just wrote a rather innocuous piece that just happened to criticize an aspect of modern life, Gay men who create children and seek to raise them alienated from their natural mother, She asks the questions and and puts forward a reasoned argument about why she thinks this is less than ideal. Sear has used it as an excuse to give his anti Catholic bigotry a thorough workout. For all of his pretencions of openness and a oft claimed support for diversity he just can’t respect the notion that someone like Sheehan may question the desire of Gay activists to use modern science to get around the reality of biology that it takes a man and a woman to make children.

  7. B.Tolputt

    And you would be just as wrong as Jezza is

    But how can I be? Not only have you refused to refute his points (instead claiming they are irrelevant because he has no kids) but I’ve got more children then you. By your logic, that makes me the one more qualified.

  8. ShaunHC

    one thing that just occured to me. Twobob said “kids know homosexuality is wrong”. Actually it would be my experience with kids that anyone who doesn’t fit in every single way with the “norm” is picked on. Wear the wrong shoes you’re picked on. Wrong school bag you’re picked on.

    So I really don’t think they know it is wrong. I think they know it is not the norm, and being not the norm is a dangerous thing at school.

  9. RobJ

    [I do not hate homosexuals , nor do I fear them ]

    You just don’t believe that homosexuals should have the same rights as other human beings I would argue that you do hate them by wanting to deprive them of the joys of parenthood.

  10. RobJ

    [Actually not an outrageous presumption at all, in the first instance you announce that you are Bisexual and that you have kids,]

    Yes it is, bisexual doesn’t mean unfaithful!

    [secondly you call yourself “antichrist”.]

    [the fact that you call your self what you do suggests that you have rejected concepts like fidelity and monogamy.]

    To a bible thumping idiot maybe, FFS it’s just a nickname for the internet.. I call myself Blob sometimes for fun because it rhymes with Rob, Big Deal!

    Just keep on making rash assumptions based on the flimsiest of evidence, keep jumping to conclusions, keep on being wrong!

  11. RobJ

    [The funny thing is that most older people who have never had children would never presume to think that they know much about raising kids,]

    [yet those who are young and childless are often full of piss and vinegar thinking that they remember enough from their own childhood to claim expertise.]

    OK, if you’re so confident then point me to the research that backs this up or do I need to remind you that the plural of anecdote is not data?

    [Humility comes with age I suppose.]

    I take it you’re a youngster 😉

  12. Iain Hall

    Confussions #75

    Well, it’s actually very straightforward. Iain is trying to argue that same sex households are no place for children. Like twobob, Iain is trying to make it seem like he has only the welfare of children uppermost in his mind, because to simply say straight out that you don’t agree with same-sex couples rearing children is outright bigotry and hatred, and would mean Iain’s arguments could be instantly dismissed (if they already aren’t) as thinly-veiled homophobia.

    My position on sexuality has consistently been that what anyone does with another consenting adult in private is their own business. Bringing children into the equation does change things but I make a distinction here between children who are created as a relationship accessory by the means of reproductive technologies and those conceived in the conventional manner. I have raised some issues and concerns that I also hold about heterosexuals using the same methodologies to create children.
    I do not hate homosexuals , nor do I fear them but just because some of their advocates and activists lobby for particular social changes that I disagree with it is ridiculous to claim that I do.
    Rob J #78

    Riiiight, you need to raise kids or STFU? Pretty much invalidates your own opinions, ie have you ever had a homosexual relationship?

    The funny thing is that most older people who have never had children would never presume to think that they know much about raising kids, yet those who are young and childless are often full of piss and vinegar thinking that they remember enough from their own childhood to claim expertise.Humility comes with age I suppose.
    btdg #82

    It takes a village to raise a child. Parents have only a limited influence on their kids anyway. Kids model themselves on a huge variety of adults – parents, uncles and aunts, grandparents, friends, teachers, media figures, etc. At varying points in their growth, these influences have different impacts (ie from 0-5 the parents are almost the sole influence, whereas from 12-16 its probably their peers who have the biggest impact). I have noticed a slight tendency (with enormous variance) for kids from single-parent families to struggle. This is invariably not because you need two parents, though, but because the single parent doesn’t have enough support (ie only one set of grandparents, one set of aunts and uncles, only one income so parent working long hours, or not enough control over the external influences because the parent is so busy)

    It amuses me that in the first instance you want to suggest that any concept of there being an ideal or a better sort family structure is unsupported by your straw poll of your charges and then you wrire the paragraph above. I acknowledge yet again that those with different circumstances can do a good job of parenting and I refer you back to my earlier comments about the creation of children by the use of reproductive technologies.

    Antichrist #83

    What an outrageous presumption you made with your claims of my unfaithfulness to my wife and, by implication, my children!! I was never unfaithful to her during our dozen years together and our ultimate breakup had absolutely nothing to do with my sexuality or the way in which I’ve loved her or my kids.

    Actually not an outrageous presumption at all, in the first instance you announce that you are Bisexual and that you have kids, secondly you call yourself “antichrist”. As it is biologically impossible for your children to have resulted form your homosexual liaisons then it follows that they were events outside the pair bond that resulted in your children. The fact that you call your self what you do suggests that you have rejected concepts like fidelity and monogamy.
    I notice that you don’t answer my question about monogamy care to do so now?
    B.Tolputt #84

    However in a point-by-point rebuttal, I’d only be repeating those that you are throwing ad hominem attacks at. Regardless of their background, they have the same opinion as this parent of four.

    And you would be just as wrong as Jezza is 😉

  13. arnold

    like twobob, i grew up in regional nsw.
    unlike twobob, i had a best friend, who also grew up in regional nsw, born to heterosexual parents, but who was, shortly before his eighteenth birthday brutally beaten to death for being homosexual.
    he didn’t want to be homosexual. he just happened to be that way.
    perhaps twobob might like to revisit what he deems responsible parenting, given that he explains his attitude to gays, one very similar that led to the death of my best friend, was one passed onto him by his (presumably) heterosexual parents.

  14. quantize

    Gross…..people who dont actually know real living and breathing gay people are every bit as good a folk as anyone who writes in these pages that is!

    The way some of you talk…its shameful. You live in tiny little worlds. I don’t get how you can live in a country as cosmopolitan as Australia and know SO little about people with different life choices from yours. It’s pathetic.

  15. bpobjie

    “I was raised in country NSW and believe me from where I am from I am considered abhorrent for my views on racism, refugees and conservation. But more to the point jeremy each year we would select a group of young rams as potential sires of our next generation. They would be drafted off and raised in a group without ewes. Some rams raised this way turn out to be homosexual. That is they wont mate with ewes only with other rams. When we could identify such an animal we would shoot it dead.
    That was the lesson of a 5 year old boy. When I asked my dad why we shot them he explained to me that they were worse than useless, they were selected, they ate, they cost money to feed, crutch, sheer and dip and took the place of other rams who were now castrated.
    That is where it comes from jeremy. I hope it helps with your understanding of my attitude to homosexuality.”

    Well that settles that. I hope you all feel really ashamed of yourselves for suggesting that twobob is irrational. Looks like his “my dad shot gay sheep when I was five” argument just shot you all down in flames, you Mother’s Day-hating, anal sex-loving, pro-gay hippies.

  16. Sammy Jankis

    Iain

    [N]ever have I seen a straight writer so often go into bat for the other team.

    Shorter Iain: “If you love gay people so much why don’t you just marry one? …oh…hang-on…”

  17. B.Tolputt

    Well, I am a parent and call bull-puckey on your diatribe Iain. However in a point-by-point rebuttal, I’d only be repeating those that you are throwing ad hominem attacks at. Regardless of their background, they have the same opinion as this parent of four.

    So address what they are saying because it is obviously the same as what would come from a parent (making their background irrelevant).

  18. theantichrist

    @Iain

    Errrr… I don’t recall ever addressing you in my earlier post, however, it appears you prefer to be included under the intolerant bigoted banner so I will fully respect your wishes on that one and address you directly.

    Twobob’s hatred-filled views certainly do REFLECT (the word I deliberately used) those of the more extremely religious. The concept of shooting gays is very akin to the likes of the vile Wesley Methodist Church in the US who, using the same sort of warped logic, should all be shot on sight themselves. That’s what extremism does, of course, as some of the posts on this forum certainly prove.

    How anyone can suggest that a person’s ability to love someone else, particularly of their own flesh and blood, is determined solely by their sex or sexuality really is beyond me.

    Whoops, you walked into this one…

    What an outrageous presumption you made with your claims of my unfaithfulness to my wife and, by implication, my children!! I was never unfaithful to her during our dozen years together and our ultimate breakup had absolutely nothing to do with my sexuality or the way in which I’ve loved her or my kids.

    I confessed to her AND my children several years after our breakup. I didn’t need to do this as what I do in my own bedroom had (prior to our marriage) and has now ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with my ex-wife and, especially so, my kids. My sexuality has NEVER been an influence on my love for her and them or how I’ve raised my children. Sorry, I take that last part back… it did have an influence on the raising of my kids as my confession to them and very open discussion on sexuality has made them even more understanding and tolerant towards others regardless of anything as unimportant as one’s sexuality. Something that every RESPONSIBLE parent has an obligation to do along with teaching them the evils of all other forms of discrimination.

    That reason alone was ample justification to do what I did. My ex-wife’s comment “that I was the bravest person she had ever known” was the sweetest icing on the cake imaginable. However, the other underlying reason was to relieve the huge life-long burden that the twisted “morality” of religious beliefs has placed upon anyone in our society with differing views or lifestyles to those “norms”. This was my own form of purging of any influence that religion (or, indeed, any other extremist views) has on our supposedly SECULAR society. Religion or gods belong ONLY in the minds of those naive enough to believe in fairy tales and DOES NOT belong anywhere near our laws or societal norms!!! And I repeat… keep your snotty noses out of my @#$%^*& bedroom!!!!!

    Whether Twobob’s or others’ reprehensible bigotry is associated with religious brainwashing or not, it still smells like the same pile of steaming turd to me. It might just be a different colour of turd (baby poo green perhaps?)… and Twobob should know all about that.

    P.S. Before anyone jumps to any further wrong conclusions… the last remark was a comment on racism NOT a racist comment!

    Here endeth my sermon!

  19. btdg

    I wholeheartedly support what Jeremy is saying here, and would like to throw in a few observations from my years as a teacher, dealing with parents of all types:

    – In my class at present, there are 21 students. Of those, 8 live in what Twobob and Iain would call the ‘normal’ family – with a male and female biological parent. The rest come from a complete variety of backgrounds. At present (as best I remember it), I have kids living with one biological and one step-parent (4?), split between divorced/separated parents (4; 3 living primarily with the mother, 1 living with the father), single parents whose partner has passed away (2), grandparents (1), other family (1), and with foster parents (1). No gay parents this year, but have had them in the past. To say the ‘norm’ exists, is a horrible misnomer that does a huge injustice to the variety of family life. Of all those groups, the only one that seems to cop any flack from idiots is gay parents (and occasionally single mothers, for some reason).

    – Of all the parents I’ve seen, very few are ‘bad’. Almost all of them try their butts off, in a demanding job for which there is no training and very little on-going assistance. Nothing that good parents do (well, apart from kick-starting the process) relates to their genitals (I can’t believe it was necessary to type that sentence…). The key attributes – taking an interest in what your kids do, providing them with guidance, love, compassion, etc – seem to me to be entirely gender-neutral. There are a broad range of parenting styles that seem to me to be much more cultural or related to the individual than to gender. I have seen some fantastic step-parents, some single parents that do a wonderful job, and some horrible ‘straight’ couples (featuring physical and emotional abuse). I’ve also seen kids whose parents do everything ‘right’ turn out bad.

    – It takes a village to raise a child. Parents have only a limited influence on their kids anyway. Kids model themselves on a huge variety of adults – parents, uncles and aunts, grandparents, friends, teachers, media figures, etc. At varying points in their growth, these influences have different impacts (ie from 0-5 the parents are almost the sole influence, whereas from 12-16 its probably their peers who have the biggest impact). I have noticed a slight tendency (with enormous variance) for kids from single-parent families to struggle. This is invariably not because you need two parents, though, but because the single parent doesn’t have enough support (ie only one set of grandparents, one set of aunts and uncles, only one income so parent working long hours, or not enough control over the external influences because the parent is so busy)

    – The idea that gay couples should be prevented from adopting because gay children will be bullied is utterly reprehensible. Bullying is not tolerated in schools under any circumstances. Does it happen? Occasionally, and in my experience it is treated with the upmost seriousness. But blaming the victim (or the parents of the victim) is even worse than a 14-yo saying something stupid. Twobob, you are so far wrong on this one it is disgusting. Copping bullying is bad enough, but something most kids learn to deal with over time. Being told you deserve it because of who your parents happen to be is going to make it much more likely to lead to bigger problems down the track.

    – For what its worth, kids these days are far more aware of ‘difference’ and far more accepting than in the past. Given the makeup of my classroom, that isn’t surprising. There simply isn’t a ‘norm’ to compare to (and that goes for ethnic and religious differences too). Where kids (young and old) have those prejudices, they almost always come from bigoted parents who have to point out why a particular difference is ‘wrong’ (for example why it is wrong to have two daddies, but not to live with your nan and pop, or to live just with daddy cos mummy got sick and died).

  20. quantize

    Somehow I don’t think it IS going to be much of a shock if Ian’s kids ever did get to read the pages of ignorant intolerant sputum and bile he does actually believe in….I don’t believe for a millisecond that’s not gonna be passed on…the man has an entire blog filled with the rambling stupidity…its his MODE.

  21. SonofMogh

    Iain, As a parent I can say your talking shit.
    Growing up with a mate who was adopted I can say your talking shit.
    Working with several gay people (1 with kids) I can say your talking shit.
    But then again you always talk shit.
    Keep rocking on that porch in Queensland and plucking that banjo, still laughing at you.

  22. Iain Hall

    Jeremy

    Can someone show me where Iain has in his response addressed the point I raised, that families are unique and that Iain and his wife’s version of child-raising is not in any way the only or necessarily even best option? (Is it child abuse for children to be raised by people other than Iain and his wife?) How does once again noting that I have cats and not (yet) children in any way respond to that?

    Are you ever going to have children Jeremy? No?
    The thing is once you do you will realise that as a member of the “club” you get insights into the process that that those who don’t breed never seem to appreciate. Other members of the club tell you share with you in a way that they don’t with non-parents. If you ever do it you will understand.

    Can someone point to me where Iain describes a specific parenting skill of his wife’s that he can’t emulate because of his genitals? He might be more calculating and his wife might be more emotional, but on what grounds does he assert that there might not be a “more emotional” member of a gay partnership or a “more calculating” parent in a lesbian one?

    You have enough straw here to build a house, which is to be expected when all you have is theory and agenda driven “research”.

    So… what is Iain saying? We’re discussing the law not discriminating against gay couples raising kids. If Iain is opposing an end to such discrimination (and if he’s not, now would be a good time to clarify that) on the grounds of non-biological parents not being “truly invested in their child’s welfare”, then does he also support government moves to prevent other forms of non-biological parenting, and if not, why the distinction?

    I have serious ethical doubts about some of the fertility technology involved here and the questions have to be asked and that does not mean that I want to proscribe anything. But you do seem to be saying that because something is possible (like AID) that it should be available to any who seek it. Would you support mentally ill people being able to have perfectly healthy limbs amputated because they want to do so because it is the same sort of ethical question.

    Is it just your asinine assumption that no man could be as “emotional” as your wife and no woman could be as “calculating” as you?

    Jeremy I am not saying that every woman is a total slave to their emotions nor am I saying the every man is a cold hearted robot all that I am saying is that when it comes to raising children that the qualities of both genders have a great deal to add to the creation of well rounded children. You want to argue that as long as those doing the child rearing love those children that gender does not matter. your problem is that there is no (credible ) research that supports you.

    PS “No entirely believable and quite accurate, never have I seen a straight writer so often go into bat for the other team.”

    Eh? Eh? WINK WINK WINK!

    If I wanted to claim that you were Gay I would have just come out and said so which of course you would not take offence at because you so often say that calling some one Gay is not a credible insult.

  23. RobJ

    [No Rob the issue is about the best way to raise the next generation (something that Jeremy is entirely ignorant about) ]

    Riiiight, you need to raise kids or STFU? Pretty much invalidates your own opinions, ie have you ever had a homosexual relationship? I mean if our opinions are invalidated because we aren’t personally experienced in a particular field then maybe we should all just STFU? Not been in a war, then your opinions on war aren’t valid? Never been elected? Then our opinions on politicians are invalid etc etc, this is your rationale, you are basically claiming to be right about not letting homosexuals adopt (or get married) because you have kids, therefore you know more! Well from your posts I’d contend that you’re very narrow minded.

  24. RobJ

    [The thing is I am not in any sense condemning anyone for being Gay. ]

    But you are saying that gays shouldn’t have the same rights as other human beings this is why you are a bigot!

  25. Klaus

    Having had to contend with this type of pious crud throughout most of my gay life, I never cease to be amazed that in regard to attacks on homosexuality, the best defence that people such as twobob and Iain offer…is their heterosexuality.

    To quote Boy George, I’ve nothing against homophobes – I just wouldn’t want them near my kids.

  26. confessions

    [So… what is Iain saying? ]

    Well, it’s actually very straightforward. Iain is trying to argue that same sex households are no place for children. Like twobob, Iain is trying to make it seem like he has only the welfare of children uppermost in his mind, because to simply say straight out that you don’t agree with same-sex couples rearing children is outright bigotry and hatred, and would mean Iain’s arguments could be instantly dismissed (if they already aren’t) as thinly-veiled homophobia.

    But because there is no logical argument against children being raised in same-sex households, Iain’s argument falls into a hole once you start introducing other types of households in which children are successfully parented: single parent households, adoptive parent households, surrogate type parents, shared parenting arrangements with extended family members and so on. But rather than acknowledge that if his argument were to apply to those other households, we’d be wiping out a significant number of domestic arrangements in which real children are raised, Iain simply goes onto the next bluster point: you don’t have children, so you have no right discussing this issue at all.

    Cue his next bluster point trying to argue the emotions women have can be expressed as a percentage proportionate to the number of ova each woman has. Men’s calculatedness OTOH is directly related to how much sperm they have, men not having ovaries of course, which is why it’s only women who can impart emotion on children.

  27. Jeremy Sear

    Me: “Iain, just because you’ve raised two kids and your partner is a woman doesn’t mean that yours is the only or the ideal arrangement.”

    Iain: “I have at least raised some children you have not. It is not something that you have anything but the most superficial understanding of. Keeping cats does not qualify you in this at all.”

    Can someone show me where Iain has in his response addressed the point I raised, that families are unique and that Iain and his wife’s version of child-raising is not in any way the only or necessarily even best option? (Is it child abuse for children to be raised by people other than Iain and his wife?) How does once again noting that I have cats and not (yet) children in any way respond to that?

    Me: “I’m not sure which of your wife’s skills and attributes you’ve found yourself unable to emulate but show me why it’s because of your genitals and not simply because you are a different individual.”

    Iain: “News flash! Men and women are very different and the difference is not just about genitals their minds are different too and both have something to contribute to teaching a child about the world. In my experience women are more driven by their emotions and men are more calculating Now both aspects are important and every child needs to have models of each aspect to be a balanced individual. That is not so likely in a same sex couple.”

    Can someone point to me where Iain describes a specific parenting skill of his wife’s that he can’t emulate because of his genitals? He might be more calculating and his wife might be more emotional, but on what grounds does he assert that there might not be a “more emotional” member of a gay partnership or a “more calculating” parent in a lesbian one?

    Me: “And the suggestion that non-biological parents are not “truly invested in that child’s welfare” is offensive nonsense. I presume you teach your kids to let the adopted kids at school know that their adoptive parents don’t really care about them?”

    Iain: “Don’t presume anything about what I teach my children. The facts of the matter are that I make a point of teaching them tolerance and the beauty of diversity so I would never suggest the hateful thing that you do above. Heck I even tell them that there is nothing “wrong” with being Gay.”

    So… what is Iain saying? We’re discussing the law not discriminating against gay couples raising kids. If Iain is opposing an end to such discrimination (and if he’s not, now would be a good time to clarify that) on the grounds of non-biological parents not being “truly invested in their child’s welfare”, then does he also support government moves to prevent other forms of non-biological parenting, and if not, why the distinction?

    Is it just your asinine assumption that no man could be as “emotional” as your wife and no woman could be as “calculating” as you?

    PS “No entirely believable and quite accurate, never have I seen a straight writer so often go into bat for the other team.”

    Eh? Eh? WINK WINK WINK!

  28. Iain Hall

    Jeremy#63

    It’s amazing. He writes a paragraph after each quote whilst completely missing every point made.

    No I disagree with your points, while all you do is pretend that I have “missed” them

    Confusions #64

    Yes You are my favourite person as well 😉

    Rob J #66

    it’s about equality, is a male who believes in equality of the sexes batting for ‘the other team’?

    No Rob the issue is about the best way to raise the next generation (something that Jeremy is entirely ignorant about) equality between the sexes does not require the sort of denial of their individual roles in reproduction that Jeremy makes at all.
    Alister #67

    The notion that children need both biological parents is obviously ridiculous (obviously so because of the multitude of children; current PM included, who grow up without one or both).

    Yes I know lots of people who have blended families and or who are or have been single parents and they can make a very good fist of the parenting task but that doesn’t alter the fact that the positive contribution of both biological parents to the raising of their young is clearly an advantage to those children. And yes I know that some people are crap at parenting.

    The notion that a step-parent (irrespective of gender) can’t be a ‘real’ parent is equally ridiculous.

    They clearly can be a more than adequate surrogate but that does not mean that the need to know the real parent is lessened because so much of what each of us is as a person comes from our biological antecedents. One of my major objections to Gay couples using technology like AID or surrogacy to create children is that they alienate the children they create from their heritage. Ask anyone who is adopted about the pain they feel about not knowing where they come from and you may realise just how serious this is as an issue for them.
    theantichrist #68

    Why do you assume that objections to any aspect of this issue is all about ancient religious principles? Two Bob has cited only a biological reasons for his objections and I have not once invoked any religious dogma to support my argument.

    I’m certain that those being condemned for being gay and trying their best to raise children in a loving family environment are at least teaching their children about the evils that religious (or any other) intolerance brings to our society.

    The thing is I am not in any sense condemning anyone for being Gay. My position on sexuality has always been that in a free society anyone can engage in any kind of consensual sex with anyone they please in private. That is what I teach my kids but I also think that it is entirely reasonable to also teach them that making children should be done within a partnership between a man and a woman.

    You say that you are bisexual well that is your choice but do your children know that you are/were unfaithful to their mother? and how will you deal with their inevitable questions about fidelity and the concept of monogamy?
    Joni #70

    And what personal experience do you have on being homosexual, Iain?

    You are right I have always been straight, but being Gay isn’t the issue here at all. The issue is good parenting and I suspect that you are like Jeremy, entirely without any experience in that field.

  29. Marek Bage

    That’s right twobob. I agree with your initial comment.

    These children of same sex parents need to be protected from the taunts of nasty little schoolyard bigots.
    However, I would have thought that the best way to acheive this aim is to not raise nasty little schoolyard bigots yourself.

  30. joni

    And just following on from my comment at 70.

    Most people do not know what it is like to be homosexual, but all know what it is like to be a child and to be loved. And gay parents can love their children just as much as straight parents, single parents, adoptive parents etc.

  31. joni

    And what personal experience do you have on being homosexual, Iain?

    ZIP zilch Zero!

    You know nothing of what a same-sex couple’s relationship is like.

    None.

  32. quantize

    wtf! 2bob is as stupid as Inain? when the hell did that happen? freakish.

  33. theantichrist

    Twobob and others so perfectly reflect the narrow-minded bigotry that brain-washed religious fanatics such as Catherine Sheehan spew forth in their pathetic attempts to justify the intolerance towards others as demanded by their gods and ridiculous fairy tales.

    The only thing we should be concerned about here is that those fairy tales are a much, much greater danger to the general well-being of our kids and our society than the “fairies” they are condemning. I’m certain that those being condemned for being gay and trying their best to raise children in a loving family environment are at least teaching their children about the evils that religious (or any other) intolerance brings to our society.

    So, any of you who allow ancient, irrelevant “morals” to dictate your views on subjects such as love need to get back in your boxes and keep your noses out of something you have no serious credentials to even comment on. Oh, and while you’re at it, keep your snotty noses out of our bedrooms too as it has absolutely nothing to do with you.

    My credentials: A very loving father of two of the most beautiful, well-adjusted, tolerant and caring people you could ever imagine. Oh yeah, and I’m bisexual too and don’t mind a bit of the old bum stuff as well so go figure!!

  34. Alister

    I’d just like to note that Twobob is wrong about everything. That Iain Hall is as well is scarcely worthy of comment. The notion that children need both biological parents is obviously ridiculous (obviously so because of the multitude of children; current PM included, who grow up without one or both). The notion that a step-parent (irrespective of gender) can’t be a ‘real’ parent is equally ridiculous.

    Actually, re-reading Iain’s comment, I’d like to offer one piece of gratuitous advice to Twobob. Iain writes that, “I even tell them (his children) that there is nothing “wrong” with being Gay.” Twobob, that makes PP’s resident troll more progressive than you are. You may wish to consider that to the required degree of depth.

  35. RobJ

    [I seen a straight writer so often go into bat for the other team.]

    wow – what a bigot, it’s about equality, is a male who believes in equality of the sexes batting for ‘the other team’?

  36. confessions

    [I honestly, really don’t think that this is the same twobob as we have seen in the past. And if it is, well … people can really surprise you, can’t they.]

    This side of twobob came out during the DAvid Campbell resignation thread. I got the distinct impression there that if Campbell had been having extra-marital sex with a 22yo woman, there’d be no problem in twobob’s eyes.

    Just like he thinks adopted children into hetero households is fine, but baulks at children being adopted into gay and lesbian households, presumably because same sex couples “don’t love each other” like heteros. Absolute bigotry and total hypocracy.

  37. confessions

    [It’s amazing. He writes a paragraph after each quote whilst completely missing every point made.]

    Which is why most sensible people ignore him – he’s clearly ignorant, and just seeking to inflame.

  38. Jeremy Sear

    It’s amazing. He writes a paragraph after each quote whilst completely missing every point made.

  39. Iain Hall

    Jeremy #51

    Where to begin with Iain’s rubbish? Iain, just because you’ve raised two kids and your partner is a woman doesn’t mean that yours is the only or the ideal arrangement.

    I have at least raised some children you have not. It is not something that you have anything but the most superficial understanding of. Keeping cats does not qualify you in this at all.

    I’m not sure which of your wife’s skills and attributes you’ve found yourself unable to emulate but show me why it’s because of your genitals and not simply because you are a different individual.

    News flash! Men and women are very different and the difference is not just about genitals their minds are different too and both have something to contribute to teaching a child about the world. In my experience women are more driven by their emotions and men are more calculating Now both aspects are important and every child needs to have models of each aspect to be a balanced individual. That is not so likely in a same sex couple.

    Any combination of unique individuals is, obviously, unique, and no child is going to have access to all the best aspects of all the potential parents out there, whether they’ve two dads, two mums, or one of each. Each pair of parents, whatever their gender, brings their own strengths and weaknesses to the task.

    That is a fine sounding platitude but not reflective of reality gender matters in parenting and you just can’t pretend that it doesn’t. Its the Yin and yang thing, every child benefits from a balance between the two aspects of humanity.

    You’ve given no reason to believe that a particular gay or lesbian couple brings more weaknesses and fewer strengths to child-raising than a particular heterosexual couple – and, given the evidence in some of the links above, it seems clear that that’s because there is none.

    But those self selecting surveys are very flawed as this link explains the methodologies of such surveys are just not dispassionate enough to be at all credible.

    Children of gay and lesbian parents actually seem to do better than those of heterosexual parents, if you want to make generalisations.

    Seem is the operative word here when the “research” is done by people with an agenda don’t be surprised that the result supports that agenda.

    A “passable job of raising children” indeed. You arrogant twit.

    I call it as I see it and one thing about raising some children is that you get to meet other parents and it is instinctive to judge just how good a job you think that they are doing.
    Just what personal experience do you have on the subject?
    ZIP zilch Zero! Thats how much YOU know about parenting!

    And the suggestion that non-biological parents are not “truly invested in that child’s welfare” is offensive nonsense. I presume you teach your kids to let the adopted kids at school know that their adoptive parents don’t really care about them?

    Don’t presume anything about what I teach my children. The facts of the matter are that I make a point of teaching them tolerance and the beauty of diversity so I would never suggest the hateful thing that you do above. Heck I even tell them that there is nothing “wrong” with being Gay.

    PS “Fag hag mode”? Unbelievable.

    No entirely believable and quite accurate, never have I seen a straight writer so often go into bat for the other team.

  40. Captain Col

    Can I make it three against the pure poison world? A good defence and series of comments from twobob and Iaian.

    There is no doubt in my mind that children are better off raised in a family unit with both a mother and father. Natural parents are usually more connected to their children than step parents (I am both) or addoptive parents but I accept that strong bonds exist in all sorts of relationships. Most here don’t seem to put the child’s needs first. Any argument about different sorts of family structures misses the point entirely.

    It all boils down to the simple obvious fact that men and women are different and the parental presence of both sorts of input produce better adjusted kids. Yes I admit this is a generalisation proved only by thousands of years of human experimentation and experience.

  41. oldskool

    This would appear to be an argument that can’t be won. Twobob and Iain have their prejudices and like anyone with an illogical belief structure, no amount of rational argument will change that. As an atheist, I have this argument all the time, and it is pointless.

  42. ShaunHC

    the blatant misconstruing of my contentions

    Seriously twobob, where?

    You said straight up homsexuality is wrong. How can that actually be misconstrued?

    Why is that when people get pulled up about something that they have said that they feel uncomfortable defending, they say they have been misunderstood?

    also where are the ad hominem attacks? Saying you disagree with someone does not mean your are attacking them as a person.

    Could you also point out the straw men? I missed them too.

  43. twobob

    mondo you are wrong again

    Making it quite clear that you regard the adoption process as potentially damaging, regardless of the sexuality of the adoptive parents

    The adoption process is potentially damaging. Dont you know that? That the children who are adopted are better off with their adopted parents is moot. I am not against adoption again I am pointing out that adoptees do suffer physiological problems. Even when you explain your self your conclusions show that you have not grasped the nuiance of my posts. For your own sake please stop miscontuing this issue or what I meant by it. It might help if you bear this in mind while you reread my posts.
    I’m off now have a good weekend everyone

  44. mondo rock

    I would argue that as children are the result of the combination of elements from both genders that it naturally follows that if the couple who both contribute their gametes to create those children raise them then they are both truly invested in that child’s welfare.

    Iain believes that adoptive parents are less invested in their children than biological parents?

    a child created by anonymous donor or by surrogacy is almost guaranteed to be alienated from at least half of their ancestral heritage and there is plenty of evidence that many people so conceived spend their whole lives feeling that they just don’t know who they really are.

    And now he’s having a go at children conceived through a sperm or egg donor!!

    Bloody hell – these two are so desperate to defend their prejudice that they’re smearing just about every form of non-traditional parenting available!!

  45. Jeremy Sear

    Twobob, we’re trying to understand your argument.

    If your distinction between the mixed-race child being persecuted in the South and the child of gay parents persecuted now is not that the latter feels inferior because of her parents not being her biological parents – which is exactly the same for any adopted child, gay parents or heterosexual parents – then how is what you’re saying not applicable to all adopted children, and by extension, their adoptive parents? If you’ve drawn another distinction, please repeat it, because I can’t see what it is.

    Look, we are talking about the issue of whether gay people should be permitted by law to adopt. Are we correct in inferring from your comments that you believe they should be prevented by the law?

    The only argument you’ve given in support of that position, if that is your position, that I can see is one that applies equally to all adopting couples and their children: that their kids could be persecuted.

    We agree that’s a bad thing, but what’s your solution? Ours is for the kids who persecute them to be taught not to do that.

    And, sorry, the fact that they used to shoot gay sheep is hardly a reason to teach your kids that homosexuality is “wrong”. Is that seriously all you’ve got? That, and that anal sex is bad, even though many gay people don’t engage in it, lesbians almost certainly don’t, many heterosexual couples indulge in it, and all the STDs you’re worried about are communicable through heterosexual intercourse? Is that really all you’ve got to justify supporting discrimination against gay and lesbian people?

  46. twobob

    As an addendum, and not to distract from the fairly critical questions I asked you in my last comment, why do you think “homosexuality is wrong”? On what grounds?

    I was raised in country NSW and believe me from where I am from I am considered abhorrent for my views on racism, refugees and conservation. But more to the point jeremy each year we would select a group of young rams as potential sires of our next generation. They would be drafted off and raised in a group without ewes. Some rams raised this way turn out to be homosexual. That is they wont mate with ewes only with other rams. When we could identify such an animal we would shoot it dead.
    That was the lesson of a 5 year old boy. When I asked my dad why we shot them he explained to me that they were worse than useless, they were selected, they ate, they cost money to feed, crutch, sheer and dip and took the place of other rams who were now castrated.
    That is where it comes from jeremy. I hope it helps with your understanding of my attitude to homosexuality.

  47. mondo rock

    Do you even know what a gamete is?

    Of course I do – if we ignore your gratuitous use of the words “that love each other” then your point is merely that children raised by their natural parents are advantaged by virtue of being able to say “I am the result of my parent’s actual coupling”, whereas those raised by non-biological parents cannot.

    This argument obviously applies to adopted children regardless of whether their adopted parents are gay or not.

    You also said that The girl in question will never know what it is like to snuggle in her own mothers arms and when adult might have some very nasty thoughts about why she was abandoned by her. Again – an argument that applies to adopted children in general and not gay adoptees specifically.

    And then you seal the deal with: I would be surprised if this did not cause some deeper physiological problems in a similar manner to that suffered by many adoptees. Making it quite clear that you regard the adoption process as potentially damaging, regardless of the sexuality of the adoptive parents.

    I’m not making this up TwoBob – those are your actual words. Yet now you say: I don’t object to adoption your leap of logic there is illogical.

    LOL. I’m confident that my leap was not only logical, but factually accurate (your current attempt to disown your own argument notwithstanding).

  48. twobob

    So you happen to agree with the bigots who think that homosexual parents are lesser parents because they’re not both the biological parents.
    no I don’t I did not say that and to contend so is yet another example of people attributing something to me that I did not do.

    Do you think kids should not be adopted because other kids will tease them for it?
    no I don’t, I did not say that and to contend so is yet another example of people attributing something to me that I did not do. I pointed out the absolute truth that children in adopted families can feel abandoned by their biological parents.

    The question that you asked me was can you explain how your argument is any different from someone in the US South in the 1950s saying that mixed race couples shouldn’t be allowed to marry because their kids will be persecuted?

    I considered it then gave an answer that has been misconstrued by many but addressed by none.

    I can’t see how your argument is distinguishable from the racists’ in the example above. … in this instance you happen to share the bigots’ perspective

    perhaps, but so far the straw man arguments, the blatant misconstruing of my contentions, the ad-hominem attacks and the ignorance toward subtleties in my argument has done nothing to convince me I’m wrong. Thanks all the same. What it has done is show to me again how even reasonable people react against those that they disagree with. It seems like many of the usually considerate and thoughtful people here can quickly adopt the tactics of those they deride.

    I do not deliberately seek to make enemies of any of the posters on this thread. That some people like returnedman for instance are disappointed in my stand is unfortunate. But I am true to myself and wont loose any sleep over the issue. And I also would like to offer sincere apologies to anyone who’s feelings that I have hurt here. That was not my purpose, I do understand how it feels to want a child within a relationship and I sympathise with any couple that has that empty longing. Perhaps one day soon science will engineer gametes from other cells and homosexuals can conceive their own children.
    Wont that open a can of worms?

  49. gregb

    Good one, Jeremy. Thing is, the “generalisation” that gays make at least as good parents as straight people is backed up by research and evidence. The “generalisation” that they do not, is pulled out of thin air (or more accurately, out the their a*$es) by people like Iain and twobob.

  50. Jeremy Sear

    Where to begin with Iain’s rubbish? Iain, just because you’ve raised two kids and your partner is a woman doesn’t mean that yours is the only or the ideal arrangement. I’m not sure which of your wife’s skills and attributes you’ve found yourself unable to emulate but show me why it’s because of your genitals and not simply because you are a different individual. Any combination of unique individuals is, obviously, unique, and no child is going to have access to all the best aspects of all the potential parents out there, whether they’ve two dads, two mums, or one of each. Each pair of parents, whatever their gender, brings their own strengths and weaknesses to the task. You’ve given no reason to believe that a particular gay or lesbian couple brings more weaknesses and fewer strengths to child-raising than a particular heterosexual couple – and, given the evidence in some of the links above, it seems clear that that’s because there is none. Children of gay and lesbian parents actually seem to do better than those of heterosexual parents, if you want to make generalisations.

    A “passable job of raising children” indeed. You arrogant twit.

    And the suggestion that non-biological parents are not “truly invested in that child’s welfare” is offensive nonsense. I presume you teach your kids to let the adopted kids at school know that their adoptive parents don’t really care about them?

    PS “Fag hag mode”? Unbelievable.