The Green Party must love acting Family Court chief judge Paul von Dadelszen. Justice von Dadelszen threw the Greens another social engineering bone to chew on this week, with his proclamation that gay and de facto couples should be able to adopt children. Currently, NZ only allows married heterosexual couples and single adults to adopt. Whereas the Greens, in their sexual orientation policy, want to:
“Support equal criteria for both “rainbow” and heterosexual couples in their assessment for suitability and eligibility for parenting.”
This is the usual, tedious, unfettered social liberalism. An individual, or any couple, should be allowed to do whatever they want, so long as they aren’t ‘hurting’ anyone. While most people agree with this liberal ideal in principle, there is a lot more disquiet over what constitutes ‘hurt’. It is extremely hard to show any specific social change harms people, because we don’t consider it moral to run ‘whole of lifetime’ experiments on humans in sealed laboratories. So the gay lobby latch onto this difficulty in proving harm (just like the cigarette manufacturers did), and milk it for all their worth.
So, we get calls from a handful for gay adoption of children. Why? No seriously, why? If a couple are truly biologically gay (ie born gay, or genetically gay; if being gay is intrinsic to their nature as human beings), then why would they wish to have children? How do you reconcile the biological urge to have children with the biological fact that gay couples cannot have children?
Do gay couples ‘step outside’ being gay for a little while, to have heterosexual intercourse to get a child? (as I understand Labour MP Chris Carter & Green MP Kevin Hague did; please inform me if this is incorrect). Hague and his Green party are now pushing the idea of gay adoption.
Oh, and de facto couples? Isn’t that an oxymoron? People who choose not to marry or get a state-sanctioned civil union are choosing to not commit to their ‘partner’. So why should the state give such people any recognition of a relationship that the ‘partners’ can’t be bothered formally recognising themselves?
In relation to adoption, why should the state allow de facto ‘couples’ to adopt children, when the couple’s de facto status demonstrates how little they have committed to each other? Will they show more commitment to their adopted children, or abandon them to the state again when they ‘fall out of love’ with their current choice of ‘partner’ or children?
I feel the same about single people being allowed to adopt, as they currently can. I have no problem with (suitable) single people being guardians or caregivers for children. A classic example of this would be an older sibling being guardian for their younger brother or sister if their parents are killed. But that gives all the legal powers they need to caregive for the child, and they already have a sibling relationship; why would they want to create a fake parental relationship? Seems rather pointless; more an ego trip perhaps.
That’s without considering this call for wider adoption to be the ‘thin end of the wedge’, opening adoption up for polygamy (Mary has 3 Dads and 5 Mums) or redefining science out of parenthood (listing guardians who are not biological parents as actual parents on birth certificates).
So, lets tweak the law to keep adoption for married heterosexual couples – you know, those folks who’ve actually committed to each other, and could (theoretically) conceive themselves. After all, wouldn’t it be nice to live within the laws of nature, and be truthful about who our biological parents are?
For other views, for and against and mixed, we have:
No Right Turn