The Opposition is right to have strong reservations about adoption by same-sex couples
I really can’t stand these attempts at bullying into submission all those who don’t conform to the new version of totalitarian thinking.
This has nothing to do with being gay or not. It’s the same-sex couple scenario that causes people to have reservations. Few people have problems with single gay women adopting children, just as they don’t have problem with single straight women adopting children. Then again, the reservations people have about single gay men adopting children (which has long been possible under our laws) are not because they are gay but because they are single men. We would have the same reservations about adoption by single straight men. Children need a mother; that’s the whole point of adoption – giving a mother to a motherless child, and not giving a child to a childless man.
If we were to examine people’s views in depth, I think we would find that there are fewer reservations about adoption by two women than there are about adoption by two men. Again, this is because we are acutely aware, at a primeval level that no amount of political correctness will change, that children need a mother.
Children need a father, and how, but the need of a mother is deeper and it is fundamental. Children deprived of a mother are never quite right, and many turn out to be extremely vulnerable to the depredations of those with negative intent because it is the mother (being a woman as well as the mother) who notices the subtle signs and signals, often imperceptible to the father (being a man) that things are not as they should be.
The law of necessity has to be one law for all couples, whether they are made up of two men or two women. And that is where the problem lies, because we are being forced to think of a couple made up of two men as being the same as a couple made up of two women, and that both are the same as a couple made up of a man and a woman.
Of course they are not.
Two men are not the same as two women, and they are not the same as a man and a woman. To suggest that they are is political correctness gone mad.
Adoption is there to give a child parents and not to give parents a child. The ‘gay adoption’ lobby is entirely (as one would expect, I’m afraid) egocentric and adult-centric. If giving a child parents (a mother and father) is not possible for some reason, the next best thing is giving a child a mother, whether she is gay or straight. Giving a child two fathers has never been a priority, because two fathers do not make up for the deliberate omission from the equation of one mother.
By turning this whole thing into a matter of gay rights, when adoption has never been about the rights of adults but about the rights of children, we have forgotten to wonder how the children would feel about it.
Would I have wanted to be adopted by two men? No, of course not, and I would probably have said the same if I were a boy.
69 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
How dare you go against anything in the gay agenda !
Gays can’t do anything wrong, it is simply impossible, even the UN knows that.
You must be a homophobe of the lowest order.
Very good article. Knocked it right on the head.
Most of the comments posted on Times of Malta seem to spectacularly miss the point with respect that adoption is about the child and not political point-scoring or minority rights.
Some of the posturing was beneath contempt and nauseating as people gleefully demonstrated oneupmanship to wave their little political colours on subjects about which they seemed to know very little.
As for needing a mother. Again, bang on.
Just consider the poor girl who got up with the pseudo actor/teacher person. She lost her mother at a very early age and may have suffered for that lack of presence leaving her possibly vulnerable.
Just as people can be very different in nature, so can relationships and they cannot be homogenised into a box by agenda pushing politicians or activists.
I completely agree with you that this is about giving parents to a child, and not about giving children to a couple. However, I disagree with your reservations and think that the way the law looks at this is completely wrong.
I look at this from these 2 angles:
1) This is not about comparing a child living with a gay couple vs that child living with a straight couple. This is about a child living with a gay couple vs that child having no parents at all.
2) Generalisations made up of such large groups of people are bound to be wrong very often. The law should be looking at the suitability of individuals and their dynamic as a couple to be parents, irrespective of whether they’re of the same gender or not.
Thank you for this post, “This is about a child living with a gay couple vs that child having no parents at all.”
So let’s stop infant adoptions* period* until the backlog of children in foster care are adopted by all those who want to provide a family to those children who need one.
I have read the comments posted beneath the story about yesterday’s vote, on Times of Malta.
I wondered whether those relating to somehow ‘begetting’ babies by same-sex couples were dealing with animal husbandry, pig or cattle breeding, or some mumbo-jumbo of that sort.
What came to my mind was the admonition issued by animal-welfare bodies around December with the words that “a pet is not just for Christmas”.
That admonition somehow also applies to gays and lesbians who dream of cuddling adopted babies and toddlers without apparently realising what a child needs through a whole life-time to achieve fullness as a human being.
I felt utterly miserable at the thought.
Thank you, Daphne.
Judging by the comments on Facebook I thought I was the only one to have reservations about the idea and the only one not toeing the supposedly “modern world” philosophy.
Is it not ironic that the proposed introduction of divorce was debated heatedly for years, while same sex adoption has slid in without any real discussion at all.
Shame on Times of Malta for their editorial.
Everyone I have spoken to understands the PN position and supports it, but the latest bandwagon must be jumped on it seems amongst the ‘cool and trendy’.
Your words “Two men are not the same as two women, and they are not the same as a man and a woman. To suggest that they are is political correctness gone mad.” are succinct, THE REALITY and exactly the reason why the PN opposed the motion.
Unfortunately, the Independent’s editorial isn’t that much better: http://www.independent.com.mt/articles/2014-04-16/leader/pnon-the-wrong-side-of-history-4645224449/
First of all thanks for confirming to me that ‘I am not quite right’. Having lost my mother at a young age, I fully and happily agree that I am not quite right, never have been and my life has been all the richer for it. Secondly, I suggest you take a walk to the nearest public place in Malta where a lot of people congregate, sit down and cast a look around you. Within minutes you will see mothers who are not fit to be mothers, fathers who are not fit to be fathers. So quit the ridiculous gender bias because while a good mother is the most precious asset in the life of a human being, going a long way to determine success or failure in life, work and relationships, a huge number of us have had bad mothers, dead mothers and absent mothers. And guess what, many of us have gone on to establish successful lives against the odds, with our own families, businesses and careers. Third, adoption, even if the prospective adoptive parents are from Mars and from a third and fourth gender, is the surest bet of ensuring a child that has no natural parents and is in an institution has the best possible prospects in life. The vetting process will, in most cases, ensure that. Were it feasible, which of course it ain’t, I would extend that vetting process to many of the near illiterate, bone-headed couples who freely produce children as an after thought and rear illiterate, bone headed monsters, or just sad instances of utterly wasted lives. One such kid who was never shown any better or given a fighting chance at life is in today’s paper, sent back to prison at 21 for two years for stealing ( had already served one year). He was caught because he only steals razor blades and shaving foam. There are not enough good mothers to go around in our imperfect world, which is why your gender bias is such nonsense.
[Daphne – I happen to know a great deal more about the case you mention than you do, and I suggest you don’t use it to illustrate your point as it is a whole lot more complicated than you can possibly understand. And yes, children who grow up without mothers are never quite right, whatever you say. To suggest otherwise is tantamount to saying that mothers make no positive difference, which is plainly absurd.
There will always be bad mothers, and the law cannot control who has children naturally (though it can take them away from their parents if things get really bad).
But where the law DOES have full control, as with adoption, the choice should always be for a good mother and not for no mother at all.
You console yourself by looking at all the bad mothers and saying ‘well, I may have had no mother, but at least I didn’t have a bad one.’
But you didn’t have a good one, either – and can you say that, had you been given a choice, you would have chosen to have no mother at all rather than having a good mother?
A positive reply will just sound like forced bravado, so don’t bother.]
The American Society of Pediatrics, 2006:
“There is ample evidence to show that children raised by same-gender parents fare as well as those raised by heterosexual parents. More than 25 years of research have documented that there is no relationship between parents’ sexual orientation and any measure of a child’s emotional, psychosocial, and behavioral adjustment. These data have demonstrated no risk to children as a result of growing up in a family with 1 or more gay parents. Conscientious and nurturing adults, whether they are men or women, heterosexual or homosexual, can be excellent parents. The rights, benefits, and protections of civil marriage can further strengthen these families.”
Daphne at her best. I agree 100% and it is the most coherent and informative article that I read on the subject. It is all about children and their needs, not the needs of adults who know how to fend for themselves.
I don’t care how much the PN were booed down for their actions, but both they – and you – are right in your arguments.
All political discourse by the PL and gay rights supporters has been based exclusively on the ‘right’ of same-sex parents to adopt, never on the rights of children.
I also confirm that the PL did not consult any relevant stakeholders – apart from these same supporters, perhaps – on the issue of adoption itself.
I was at the Marriage Registry and the person assisting me couldn’t help but tell me how they weren’t even considered for consultation.
This has led to some problems such as the literal copying and pasting of legislation to cover all grounds, leading to some discrepancies when things like consummation of marriage come into play.
But, of course, like everything else, the PL just went on ahead, without research, logic, consultation and fine-tuning and left us with a fine mess.
I was reflecting on something similar yesterday evening. Adoption should have as its sole aim the children and their well being.
Unfortunately, three months ago I lost my baby daughter. My greatest sorrow to this day is that she suffered and died much too early in her life and not that I lost my daughter (even thought this is also heart-breaking).
Bringing a child into one’s life, whether through procreation or adoption, is about giving life, love and a family to the child and not some fundamental right of the parent/s.
Spot on as always, Daphne, and exactly the sentiment of the grand majority of the Maltese population.
I fully agree with all you said.
Joseph Muscat has been trying to feed us otherwise but we are no eccentric mayor of Zurrieq showing the victory sign. We think before we speak or act.
Muscat managed to make use of the minority to humiliate the majority yesterday.
And where did all the lights, tents and stage equipment come from? Please don’t tell me those were Coleiro’s leftovers.
This law is so wrong.
What a pity as all the controversy could have been avoided if Labour wasn’t so intent on bulldozing its way on anything which guarantees votes.
The LGBT group should have been honest and made it clear that civil union and adoption are two different aspects altogether.
This is a morally corrupt society we live in.
I agree that adoption should be seen from the child’s point of view and not as a couple’s ‘right’.
I don’t think this excludes adoption by same sex couples – it just means that each case, no matter the gender mix of the prospective parents, should be assessed with the best interests of the child in mind.
I do not, however, agree with the Opposition’s decision to abstain.
If they had strong reservations, they should have voted against.
If their reservations were not that strong after all, they should have voted in favour.
We do not need an Opposition that sits on the fence, especially in these ‘taghna lkoll’ times.
You abstain because you agree with the civil union scope but cannot agree with adoption. Abstaining then infers that the discussion hasn’t reached a state of consensus.
Correct decision taken.
Lastly I can’t stop thinking that our grandchildren may end up with a grandma/pa on the one hand and a grandpa/pa or grandma/ma on the other.
Pathetic. Malta is going to the dogs. Definitely.
The impasse could have been avoided if they PN voted against and then presented its own civil unions bill minus the adoption issue, and raised the adoption issue separately.
I’d like to have seen Muscat wriggle his way out of that one. What would he have done? Voted against a civil unions bill on the grounds that equality is indivisible?
Good lord, if this is not the ultimate paradigm of political spinelessness I don’t know what is.
Regardless of where you stand on the issue, this is supposedly the spokesperson for the “Christian Democratic Party”.
One would have thought that the introduction of a law which alters the very fabric of of Maltese society would merited a lot more attention than the distribution of a few passports, and yet this cackle of pseudo-conservative clowns wait till virtually the very same day that the law is passed to voice some contrived myth of “opposition” which I never heard about before today, even though this bill has been on the table for quite a while.
They should come out and admit that they didn’t want to poke this issue with a 10 foot barge-pole because they knew it was hot and they didn’t want to ruffle the feathers of their constituency.
Don’t give us some half-arsed and nonsensical excuse as to why you abstained, designed specifically to lull us into believing you are still on the side of the Christian conservative.
You are not. And now you have proven that
The slippery slope to the UK political environment (where a “Conservative Party” exists only in name ) has already begun.
Soon there will be no alternative to leftist politics… And the sad thing is the last poll showed 80% of the country was opposed to this bill.
But of course the steadfast liberals – the apostles of “tolerance, liberty and democracy” don’t care about any of that.
Well, anyway, I guess we had a good run.
This issue is nowhere near as crucial as divorce was, as far as its potential impact on society, but it just serves as another indicator of the direction we’re headed.
I should have known it would only be a matter of time before this country fell right in line with the great western cult of fashion.
On to abortion, then emigration.
The Opposition is guilty of dilly-dallying.
There was only one decent and honourable way it could have voted.
NAY.
They are right to do so.
But they could have also voted against it, just like Gonzi voted against the divorce law because it wasn’t set according to the referendum question.
Is this law about gay rights or about the rights of children?
This is where our Western liberalism has gotten us, I’m afraid.
Everyone has the ‘right’ to do what he/she wants and if their wishes are not met, then off to the international courts we go where our ‘rights’ would surely be granted.
Next on the international liberal agenda, the euthanizing of the old and the infirm. A few paid articles on the mainstream media, and hey presto, it becomes defacto a necessity.
The roots of traditional values have gradually but surely been cut, and a rootless tree is as good as a dead tree.
Daphne, what we witnessed yesterday was another staged scenario, the likes of which we saw plenty prior to the last general election.
Mingled with the gay crowd were strategically posted members of the Labour marmalja, the sort of which – up to a few days ago – used to crack offensive jokes about gays all day long.
I invite everyone to look at the third video and the last video in the link below.
You can clearly hear the chants ‘Joseph Joseph’ which were initiated by the Labour marmalja. By the time the last video was taken, the members of the Labour marmalja were long gone lest they be seen with the ‘gay’ crowd!
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20140414/local/same-sex-unions-approved-celebrations-in-valletta-opposition-abstains-because-of-adoptions.514992
http://www.independent.com.mt/articles/2014-04-16/news/questions-arise-on-funding-of-valletta-gay-party-4646076416/
To add insult to injury, the funds for the whole party remain unclaimed by any one or two entities. It seems to me that Jo may have had a hand in this, especially considering how staged everything was. Nothing more than the latest PR stunt, paid for by our taxes..
Prosit, Daphne; definitely the best liberal with a (thinking) head in these islands.
While agreeing with all you say above, I suggest that the PN should now embark on pushing for cohabitation rights
Who are we who dare to point out that it is nature, not any religion or social custom, that created or evolved humanity into two different but complementary sexes, with a very clear purpose?
Nature may not be perfect, but no order should be built on that basis.
Equality does not eliminate difference which demands respect as much as equality.
The trend today may be different, but that does not make it right: nor that it change fundamental truths.
Nature never intended us to fly in tons of steel propelled by dead dinosaurs.
Nature never intended for us to ever replace parts of our bodies by high tech alloys.
Nature intended you to die with smallpox, tubercolosis, etc
I think nature should really be kept out of human decisions.
Don’t be that stupid, mate!
Nature is about survival in natural form and of nature.
Overcoming sickness with medicine IS the use of nature to enable survival of nature.
High tech alloys are a separate matter altogether. They do not alter the genetic lineage.
Gay “adoption” has nothing to do with survival of nature.
Whether or not they adopt, if adoption is to be taken in the classic sense (no genetic lineage or indirect genetic lineage), nature will survive without it.
Ultimately, it’s the choice of that gay couple alone to go down the route of that style of non-reproductive relationship.
Adoption is not a right of survival.
The child however needs propers papers and genetic traceability, where possible, for the survival of nature to be at its healthiest. This, is at its most basic.
Even our diet in the preparation to parenthood is a responsibility undertaken towards future generations.
A human being does not exist in a vacuum.
Male gay relationships impose a dead end by their own definition.
The role of surrogacy and sperm banks is yet to come to the fore. So far it has hardly been mentioned. This is where most loopholes will lie. And where the “gay adoption” fallacy lies too.
Unless the community turns the terminology around to define itself in terms of studs and breeders like bulls and cows, kept in separate fields except for the purpose of procreation, there is little that is natural about the presence of a child in a male same-sex relationship. Within a herd however, one still finds that the calf is kept with the mother until it is considered grown.
Even then, when speaking about children ensuing, we don’t talk about breeding a whole mixed herd because each child has more rights and significance than a calf. Even in a herd, there is one bull to between seven and fifteen cows, a rotation of bulls and the genetic lineage is traceable between herds, breeders and countries. We humans are giving the health of animals for consumption more “rights” than we are humans.
The child’s whole package of inalienable rights, and survival, comes before any other consideration. Why has treatment been inexistent?
We should be talking about increased precision in relation to the right of the child.
How can we talk and discuss climate change and not the right of the child? The latter is more basically fundamental than the former.
It is ALL about nature and survival.
Let’s be straight about what matters.
“Children need a mother; that’s the whole point of adoption – giving a mother to a motherless child, and not giving a child to a childless man.”
You couldn’t have argued this point better.
And I know more than a few gay “mummy’s boys” who most definitely would not trade in their mummy for a second daddy. Hell would freeze over first. Go figure.
They speak of ‘rights’, but the right of parents to adopt children does not exist, no matter how one defines ‘parents’.
If anything, it is the children who have a right to parents – normal, decent parents.
Yes, the word ‘normal’ unfailingly crops up, sorry chaps, the world turns out to be round.
Mis-seba jridu l-id, jekk le jwerzqu.
[Daphne – How nice to be in agreement for once, Kevin.]
He’s mellowing? Or just lying in the weeds.
The argument of allowing gay couples to adopt children is often backed by the fallacy of “it’s better to have a gay couple than a bad / abusive hetero couple”.
This premise puts gay couple on a higher level through the assumption that they can’t be bad / abusive which constitutes both inequality and a distortion of reality.
I don’t know how many times I’ve heard that argument, and it is tiring trying to explain otherwise. Whenever I bring up gay ‘friends’ who can be just as abusive as their examples of bad heterosexuals, they tell me they’re the exception. Just as abusive heterosexual couples are the exception.
Another derivative I’ve heard is “At least with gay couples you know they really want a child, because they can’t have their own.” Again, how is this necessarily different from heterosexual couples applying for adoption? Wouldn’t the subsequent screening actually determine whether they are suitable or not, irrespective of the couple’s intention?
Great piece, Daphne.
The two issues are distinctly separate.
In theory, any contract between two persons can be agreed to and so I have no reservation whatsoever towards civil unions.
However adoption is a very different issue.
Conception is only possible between a man and a woman, and even where men themselves are eliminated physically from the process, they are still 100% genetically present as sperm donors.
A child is ideally raised by a man and a woman, as that is the natural order of things. All else is ‘making do’.
What a relief to read this article after yesterday’s farce.
I went to bed feeling quite disconcerted – the mum in me would not let me be.
The law has let children down badly, reducing them to a commodity which would somehow reinforce the myth that two men can be equated with a mum and dad.
Very well said!
I’ve been saying for years that gay adoption could be bad for the child and would not be its natural choice.
All I get is flak about how homophobic I am.
Tough. I will stick to my guns and, when the first messed-up child of two fathers and/or two mothers decides to sue the state for right-royally screwing him/her up, I will protest as vehemently as I possibly can that the damages should be paid by those who agreed with this insane bill, myself not amongst them.
I will now sit back and wait for the bleating to start.
No bleating from me, Chris, totally agree.
My wife and I adopted our (Canadian) son when he was just six days old. He grew up in a normal family relationship with his two sisters, our natural children, and he is now a successful Swiss lawyer. He’s happily married, with two beautiful children.
I hesitate to think of the outcome if he had been adopted by two guys.
If you say a comma against the gay adoption issue, you’re automatically labelled as homophobic. And with this rate, I think it’s only a matter of time until I really become one.
Homophobia is wrong as Anti-Semitism is wrong because both attack the most fundament of genuine human rights.
Homophobia and Anti-Semitism are terms that are anathema to any civilized human being because they represent the most profound rights relating to the freedom of the individual, without in anyway impinging upon the host community.
I guess that was my little synopsis of John Stuart Mill’s “On Liberty”.
There has been a problem for Liberals in the politisation of the two prejudices. Post holacaust the very idea of anti-Semitism is naturally an inhumane thought to any right thinking person, in the hands of the politically motivated fanatic this becomes a tool for their own selfish end.
Simon Peres, President of Israel, was in 1947 an aide to David Ben Gurion, future first Prime Minister of Israel. In Peres book on the six founding fathers of the modern state of Israel he has a chapter devoted to Ben Gurion. Therein Peres relates an anecdote, gathered first hand, of David Ben Gurion’s retort to the more extreme Zionist who were accusing any and all opponents as Anti-Semites. This was in 1947, not surprisingly a highly charged accusation that could intimidate any opponent. The more extreme Zionists were not shy to accuse other Jewish people of being Anti-Semites, thus traitors to their own people. If the accusation was true then the consequences were beneficial but in the hands of the fanatically motivated Zionists this was being used as a weapon of intimidation to silence opponents unjustifiably. Peres relates how he discussed this matter with Ben Gurion who described this particular Zionists false allegation of Anti-Semitism as “a Jewish connivance” (obviously a term that should be used with care and discretion).
During the past 50 years with the liberalization of the western world the term ‘homophobic’ has developed into a blunt weapon in the hands of non-liberals, using it to stop or hinder free speech. This is the politisation of a real prejudice, in this case homophobia, which leads to it being used unjustifiably to destroy the human right of free speech.
I have serious reservations on adoption by same-sex couples.
I cannot, however, not point out that I know certain gay men who are far more sensitive and receptive to children than some mothers I know of…and believe me, my work makes me come into contact with quite a number of the latter kind.
You’d be surprised…no, not surprised, shocked, with what some children have to face living with some “mothers”.
You hit the nail on the head, Daphne!.
Now, thanks to this immoral government we have, couples consisting of a man and a woman are not able to adopt children from certain countries such as Russia, because those states have decided (and they have every right to do so) not to make Russian children available for adoption to countries where gay couples can adopt (such as Malta).
Thanks to these selfish twits, now even heterosexual couples who would raise the child in the best way possible and give him/her the love (one man and one woman can only give) s/he needs, have to suffer the ordeal of finding it even more difficult to adopt children.
As always, this government hasn’t ceased to stop lying to the people. It said that it is safeguarding the children’s rights and is protecting the children’s interests.
What a lie! I’m sure if children had a choice, they would want to be raised by a couple consisting of a man and a woman.
But, of course, children cannot vote, only adults can. And of course we will be winning the adult’s vote if we legalise whatever they please and wish.
Who cares about the children – the most important thing is that we gain the votes of adults, otherwise Joseph won’t be Prime Minister again.
This means that the transgender woman who got married few weeks ago can adopt right?
That’s an ideal mother figure.
Gay men can have their biological children today, no one can stop them and rightly so.
It is a noble undertaking to opt for adoption and help out the children in need of a family before trying to have biological children.
Children are not only in need of a mother. They need a family, siblings, parenting, guidance, attention, care and love.
I am sure that two mature men in a healthy relationship can fulfil such needs, especially if more than one child is adopted.
Interesting point, Daphne. Equality surely does not mean sameness, no matter what Dr Muscat tells Reuters. Why couldn’t we have separated the two issues?
http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKBREA3D1OS20140414?irpc=932
By the way who is reporter Chris Scicluna? Just out of curiosity.
[Daphne – Chris Scicluna works at Times of Malta and has done so for many years.]
What a ridiculous argument.
By that reasoning, why don’t we seize the children of all widowed women and men, and forbid single parents from ever raising children.
Then put them into traditional families where they will experience the strong and manly presence of a father and the soft demeanour of a stay at home mother. Oh please.
[Daphne – That is exactly what is NOT being said here.]
There have been millions of children that have grown up to be successful with only the presence of a mother, or only a father, or even only a big brother or sister.
I am quite sure that there are strong benefits of growing up in a two parent household vs. a single parent one.
I would also argue that there are going to be strong benefits of growing up in a two same-sex-parent household vs. a no parent household, which is the alternative being forced on many children who simply cannot be adopted because there are not enough willing families for the insane amount of orphans out there.
Children need a mother and father figure.
Even in orphanages run exclusively by male or female religious people, they go by this rule nowadays.
In nature I am not aware of any mammal species where the young are brought exclusively u by adults who are all male.
Exclusively female yes, as in the case of elephants, but not male, no matter what anyone says.
Well, marmosets do. Of course in the case of mammals, the mother is very important (as the mother needs to nurse the child and give it milk) and therefore the list isn’t very long. However, humans have other resources to nurse the child.
Also other non-mammalian animals include bettas (Siamese fighting fish) and penguins.
In fact there was a case in a zoo, where two male penguins formed a couple (and penguins couple for life – are monogamous). They were given an egg and they raised it together.
In addition to those, there are those animals where the males help the female to care for the child, like most primates, rats, lions, jackals, wolves, several birds, seahorses – and the list is almost never-ending.
I agree with you up to a point.
Of course the priority has to be giving a mother to a child. I think everyone would agree with that.
However when a child can’t find a home with a straight couple, lesbian couple or a single mother, shouldn’t single fathers and all male couples have their chance too?
While agreeing that if I were a child in need of a home I would always have chosen to have a mother first and foremost, if that was not an option available to me, I would have preferred to be taken in to a loving home with one or two fathers rather than living in an orphanage.
I’m sure most of the priests and nuns running the orphanages do their best for the children but I can’t imagine it being anything like having a family no matter what that family is made up of.
If push came to shove I’d pick two fathers over an orphanage any day of the week.
[Daphne – There are more hetero couples and single women who want to adopt than there are children available for adoption, Ian.]
Seriously? Any numbers to back this up?
There’s some horrible work going on in matching demand and supply then.
Imagine a child of three trying to figure out who is exactly who, and what is what, if he or she is brought up by two men married to each other, one of whom is his natural father, while being aware that he also has a natural mother who is herself married to another woman.
I have encountered such crazy situations.
And this, according to our PM, is today’s norm and in the children’s interests.
Would he like the thought of having HIS GIRLS brought up by two GAY MEN in case of some terrible and tragic eventuality?
in the above mentioned situation that I know well, the biological father of that 3 year old is the ‘mother’; in the gay relationship he is being brought up in, whilst his biological mother is the butch partner in her own gay relationship with another woman who brought in her own biological child to be brought up by the two.
What sort of idea of the world and human relationships can this poor three-year-old mite have?
Imbaghad bl-ipokrezija kollha tara lill-PM u lill-membri parlamentari tal-gvern fuq quddiem tal-knisja u l-ewwel nies li jibilghu l-ostja. Nigbtu ritratti u ntellghuhom fuq is-sit tad-DOI ta’ meta niltaqghu mal-Papa. Oqbra mbajda. X’ ha tghidlu lill-Papa l-President la tmur Ruma tiltaqa mal-Papa? Nies ipokriti. Qua vadis Malta?
U deputati tal-Labour li jaqraw fuq l-altar u li jmexxu l-kummissjoni familja fil-parrocca! Ir-religion mihiex ghal voti imma ghal mod kif nghix u nahseb!
Forsi lill-Papa l-ewwel ma tghidlu jkun li tqum fl-4.30 am biex tghid ir-Ruzarju Mqaddes – imbaghad tmur lejn il-Palazz presidenzjali biex tiffirma dik il-hnizrija ta’ ligi li ghaddew shabha.
It-tieni, izda, tkun li tistiednu jigi hawn ghaliex ‘il-poplu Malti maghqud wara’ r-Raghaj Spiritwali tal-Knisja Kattolika’.
Niftakar sewwa l-espressjoni fuq wicc il-Papa meta s-sur Hollande mar izuru – ftit wara l-farsa ipokrita li dak kien bazwar mas-siehba li telqitlu ftit wara.
“Quo vadis Malta?” Nahseb li ‘gas down ghal gol-hajt’ mhux fil-politika finanzjarja biss!
I would like to jot down a comment as a teacher, not as a parent. We are currently facing a mix of students at school coming from all sorts of families and I can confirm, YES, that the most problematic, sad, depressed and neglected children are those who don’t have a mother.
At times, when they open up to us, I feel the need of hugging them, as I hug my own children! They lack the motherly affection.
Some of them are being brought up by grannies, who definitely try to do their very best, but still, I notice a huge difference.
And another thing, as a mother now: I really like the point about ‘animals are not just for Christmas’. Unfortunately I am afraid that many people just see a child as someone to cuddle, dress nicely, buy toys, arrange rooms etc.
Well, reality is so different. A child means 100% responsibility; a child means putting his/her needs above anything else; a child means not buying that new car so that you can pay for his/her needs.
I might seem dramatic, but it is the truth. My life changed completely when I became a mother. I surely won’t change it with anything, but I must admit yes, that there were certain aspects of my life that I had to renounce to, e.g. furthering my career, going on long-trips.
Well, here’s an isolated opposing view, although far less isolated than you might think.
I think Labour did this the wrong way and for the wrong reasons. If anything it will strengthen my opinion of their unsuitability as a government, but they kind of HAVE landed on their feet and done something vaguely similar to the right thing.
We already have laws governing marriage and adoption. We didn’t need any new ones. All we needed to do was issue a three line legal notice amending a few terms, substituting parent for mother and father, person for man and woman, spouse for husband and wife.
As to the actual adoptions, there is a board whose job it is to vet the suitability or otherwise of applicants. That has not changed. The suggestion seems to be that we should stop assessing the suitability of individual applicants and start assessing the suitability of categories instead. I find that thoroughly bizarre and it may well produce results most commenters might not like.
In order to assess suitability I suppose the best way would be to judge outcomes. What if we discovered that shopkeepers from Hamrun made worse parents than gays? Or factory workers from Bormla? Or bank employees? Would we then be OK with gay adoption or would we then ban shopkeepers from adopting children? And why stop at adoption? If it is objectively a bad thing for certain categories of people to bring up children, in view of the fact that our laws governing children should be driven by the best interests of the child, should we not then start confiscating children of unsuitable categories of parents?
But what I find even more bizarre in all this is the speculation about the outcomes. Here we all are pontificating about suitability of gay or lesbian couples, ranging from the categorical “anti” to the wishy-washy “we don’t have enough information”, passing through the feeble “they might get picked on at school”.
The point is, as usual, we are standing on the parvis of the village church (which of course has absolutely no bearing in how we have formed our opinions) discussing things as if we are the first people to do so and as if there is nothing but the vacuum of empty space outside our inconsequential little village.
Well we aren’t the first, and there IS information. And this information shows that children of gay couples are no better or no worse off than those of straight couples. So why don’t we stop the hysteria and get rational for a change?
Ignorance (i.e. lack of information) and culturally ingrained religious bias are not the best legislative guidelines.
State sanctioned adoptions of children by gay couples in some states of the USA have been going on for years, and there is a body of evidence documenting normal healthy outcomes. Do you really think that such a fundamentally religious conservative country like the USA would be allowing this to go on if it thought that children were being harmed?
There is a lesson to be learned from the USA also in the rapid change in mainstream opinions about gay marriage. When gay people stopped hiding, straight people had the opportunity to see them as people, not as camp caricatures. Most gay people do not match the profile of the Mayor of Zurrieq. Once people began to see that they had a brother, a sister, a cousin, a school friend, a work colleague who was a gay person, and that he or she was in fact just that, a person, opinions changed overnight.
It will happen with this too. I don’t know that many gay people, and I know even less of them well. But of the ones I DO know well, I would not hesitate to recommend them as adoptive parents. Have I been statistically lucky? Is it something in the way I choose my friends? I doubt it, but even if it is, is that a reason to have blanket ban on a whole category?
The vast majority of people judging and making pronouncements are not speaking from experience. I would tell each one of you that until such time as you actually know a gay couple well, or read the statistics, you keep out of this discussion. Everyone has a sacrosanct right to an opinion, but if that opinion is based on speculation not on facts gathered by oneself or others than frankly it is utterly worthless. I would hazard a guess that much like women in leadership positions, higher education, the professions, etc., gay parents are driven to outperform many straight parents, but then I’d be speculating, wouldn’t I?
Think about it. How many gay couples do you know? How many of them do you think would make unsuitable parents? How many children growing up in these households do you know? How abnormal are they? Some of them? All of them? Apply the same reasoning to the straight couples you know. Is the result very different? And even if it is, are there NO gay couples you know who you would consider suitable as parents? And if there ARE some, should they be deprived of the opportunity to be assessed for suitability?
Less hysterics and more rational thought please.
Just a general question. (Curiosity maybe) –
Why didn’t the government hold a referendum about this whole issue? What are the criteria for a referendum to be held?
You know what really worries me, Daphne, that we have come to a situation where everyone is afraid to speak out, to voice his opinion.
I have posted comments on Facebook, and the way they shout you down is incredible. Also, most people are against gay adoption but very few dare to say it out in public. Society is being gripped by fear. My late father used to tell us, don’t trust Labour – their government rules by fear. Oh how right he was.
I can’t understand this logic at all. If a child needs a mother, how is a child currently in an orphanage getting a mother?
A child raised by nuns is not getting multiple mothers, and even more so is a child raised by brothers or priests. Even in the case of non-religious orphanages, a child is still not getting a mother or father.
A great number of studies have shown that children benefit more from a family environment, be that of a single parent, straight or gay couple rather than being raised in an orphanage or moving from foster home to foster home. I can’t understand why people keep throwing in their personal opinions while ignoring peer reviewed studies.
I am all for civil liberties and equal rights but just like the party I have always voted for I have reservations about gay people adopting though I am sure that some gay couples would make better parents than some straight ones.
Like you I believe a child needs a mother to an extent more than he/she needs a father.
The problem here is not the new law allowing gay couples to adopt but a previous older law which allows single people, gay men, gay women or straight men or women to adopt.
If anything with this law at least both prospective parents get to be interviewed in the adoption process instead of just one of them pretending to be single always keeping in mind that nobody, gay, single, married, coupled or straight has an automatic right to adopt.
Surely with this law given the above the situation is at least somewhat improved.
The PN should have either given a free vote or else taken a stand, for or against. Abstaining does not look good.
Fact is: the ENTIRE adoption industry is “egocentric and adult-centric” because adopters are the only paying client in the business transaction of adoption.
Also, it is absurd to place children with single mothers, single or straight – when single-parent stigma has long been, and still is, used to persuade “unwed’ mothers to relinquish! Single parents will struggle financially or leave their kids with nanny’s and in day care and not be there for them. Pragmatically, kids are better off with two parents no matter what their gender than one.
Mirah Riben, author, THE STORK MARKET: America’s Multi-Billion Dollar Unregulated Adoption Industry
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lGha10AIwCE&feature=youtube_gdata_player
I fully disagree. I think its being sexist of you to discriminate between a male and female to be the “better” parent.
Yes, usually children are more attached towards the mother than the father. However, that is only because of the traditional family way, that the father goes for work and only sees his children during the weekend and only a few hours during the week.
On the other hand, the woman either stays at home, or if she works, she has spent the first few years with the child at home.
I fail to see the difference between genders as parents. If one is good with children, that person could be either male or female.
We have just been through a long haul here in Australia to recognise the pain that adoption inflicts upon adopted persons.
This resulted in an apology from all states and the federal government. Part of this process was a senate inquiry and a quantitative/qualitative study into the effects of adoption and the separation of a biological family.
The separation of a baby from its mother causes extreme trauma for the baby, the mother and in many cases the father.
Over 50 percent of participants in this study have been left with mental health issues such as PTSD, anxiety, depression, attachment and relationship issues.
Most of the participants reported diminished satisfaction and enjoyment of life. So, for me this is not about who adopts, it is about adoption and whether it is in the best interests of the child.
This multi-million dollar demand and supply business commodifies children. Mother and her baby are psychologically, emotionally and physically a dyad that is vital for healthy happy development and should be protected and respected before anybody else’s wants, greed and need.