Comments on: Christian magistrate resigns over gay adoption

By: Kit Barker

Kit Barker — Tue, 28 Nov 2006 13:56:00 +0000

Tim, the argument isn't flawed at all. You are quite right in that lots of other countries allow gay adoption but still only very recently. Sweden for example allowed gay adoption in 2002. Even in Denmark which was the first country in Europe to allow gay couples the same rights as hetrosexual couples, this legislation came in around 1989. And that was almost 10 years before anywhere else.That's still not enough time to have a large number of adoptions go through to adulthood.Remember that this is the adoption of extremely vunerable children, not adoption in general.

(Report comment to the moderator)

By: tim

tim — Tue, 28 Nov 2006 12:24:00 +0000

Kit, your argument is flawed in the sense that that body of evidence exists in countries where adoption by same-sex couples has been legal for a long time. This evidence has been considered when the law has been voted on in Parliaiment. But even if you were right, how do you think such evidence would be gathered if people were allowed to hold their bigotry above the law? Religion has no place in these matters. What if the magistrates "Christian" belief was that children have to be raised Christian – i.e. no Muslims can adopt. Would we also consider that we have to protect his religious beliefs? Magistratets should apply the law, not rewrite it.

(Report comment to the moderator)

By: Kit Barker

Kit Barker — Tue, 28 Nov 2006 09:17:00 +0000

You miss the point and this article is pulling out a tiny portion of Mr McClintock's arguments. This isn't bigotry at all. As the article says, gay couples have been allowed to adopt since 2005. That's less than 2 years ago. Regardless of your views, you have to accept that there is no hard evidence to show that same-sex couples can bring children up to be stable, well-rounded individuals. How can there be, it's only been allowed for a year!Until that evidence is available, we cannot allow these vunerable children to be part of some social experiment.That is what Mr McClintock is actually saying, but this article (wrongly) focuses entirely on the Christian aspect.Who can seriously argue with that?

(Report comment to the moderator)

By: laddie

laddie — Mon, 27 Nov 2006 21:15:00 +0000

While it's unfortunate that the law has to be the one to ensure civil fairness in the face of bigotry (disguised as something admirable), it's very, very good to see that the facade is finally being exposed for what it is.

(Report comment to the moderator)