Thursday, October 07, 2004

Kicking out the middleman


You should have a read of This Herald article

The article correctly points out that that some children will be legally fatherless if the Care of Children Bill is passed. It will be the first time in law that kids are not able to have a legal father and mother. What the Government wants to do is legally strengthen unmarried couples via relationship legislation, but if a child is born to a lesbian couple by artificial insemination, the government wants to smash the legal relationship between the child and his or her father.

If the COC bill passes, some children may have no legal relationship to their fathers. This may be made worse if the Civil Union bill also becomes law as the partners will have a stronger legal relationship with each other and with the child/ren. One partner could be the legal parent of the child, but have absolutely nothing to do with bringing that child into the world. And one of the people who did bring that child into the world is often told down the track to piss off by one or both of the (usually lesbian) partners. That’s why the Care of Children is sometimes called a lesbian bill, a bill caring for the personal choices of lesbians, rather than the individual rights of children. And if the couple split up, and the partner decides " Well, I didn't bring the child into the world so I have no right to provide for it," she has a point. That’s why the Care of Children Bill is pure social engineering, as if it passes, that partner has a legal right to provide for that child even if she splits with the mother. Just like both a father and a mother have legal responsibility to their kids after a divorce - one keeps the child, the other is supposed to pay child support.

Then again, how many donor fathers currently pay child support now? Especially those living in Sydney. Future donors won`t have to cough up after the COC Bill goes through.

Now you may not believe that a child needs to be brought up by a mother and a father - you may think one or two mums or one or two dads may be just fine. But surely kids have a right to have the opportunity to have a legal father and a legal mother, irregardless of whom they live with.

It’s a human right - and if you don’t agree with me then post a comment saying so.

If a Government passes laws when a person is deprived of the right to have a legal father and a legal mother then that breaches Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

10 comments:

Anonymous said...

With a government so hell bent on siding with and impressing the UN, one would think that this has not been thought out too well. (Don't tell nana Hell's)

I think (article .16) #3 Also addresses the element of the right to a 'natural' family. Also, if the father is of a different nationality than the mother, doesn't the child have the right to adopt/ change their nationality? Oops! Check out (article .15)

If the father is simply wipped from the record, how is this achieved?

kiwipete

Anonymous said...

Actually, I have more than a few problems with the 'fatherlessness' lobby's propaganda. One, I seem to recall a SPUC advert that commended solo mums that hadn't chosen abortion back in the eighties. Two, bear in mind that any DPB surge has been fuelled by dysfunctional, abusive and violent dads- quite frankly,
I think there's a lot of blind and wilful romanticisation of fatherhood going on here. Three, it's based on questionable social science, often provided by people without professional practice or publication records in the fields of developmental psychology and pediatrics. This US social conservative propaganda often ignores inconvenient mainstream social scientific research that doesn't meet its functions, and seems to spend an inordinate amount of time slagging off LGBT parenting, rather than focusing on the hardship that ordinary working-class and ethnic minority families face in a time of conservative economic recession.

Craig

Dave said...

Craig, some things you write are useful, what you wrote then was complete crap. DPB surge is due to dysfunctional and abusive dads? I don’t think so, for one, there is not a DPB surge, if you believe the Government, secondly most DPB applications are made by mums who give birth and the father is absent -or when the father has just got up and left. Abusive and violent doesn’t come into it in most cases. All these kids have legal father and mother. If you don’t think that all kids should have a legal father and mother Craig, then have the balls to say so. I'm not slagging off LGBT parenting, I'm just saying that these kids have a right to have a legal father and a legal mother.

And while you`re at it, provide some decent social science research that says that kids do not have the right to have the opportunity to have a legal father and a legal mother - and I`ll buy you an ice-cream.

Anonymous said...

Dave
I expect Craig to spout Homosexual propoganda now I know who he is.
It is in his interest to tear down any of the fabric of judeo Christian society as that leads to velidification of his views and choices.
What's sad is that he says things that are plainly a untrue and he has no conscience about it.

The way he slides the arguement off to economic ideas instead of focussing on his statement (untrue) about questionable science that supports families and the father and mother in life long relationship in the home is indicative of his position.

The "junk science" points to the need for fathers again and again and there is no body of evidence that this is not, rather the body points to the very large indicators of dysfunctional lives after.

take homosexuality as a lifestyle choice as a case in point. only 31 % of the APA voted to take it out of the disease book.
before that it was viewed as a lack of imprinting or dysfunctional imprinting or individuation of the psycho sexual self.

The rampant chase for love shown by that sub culture and their focus on "young meat" or "chicken" is a clear indicatopr of dysfunctionalism.

Worse than that the same APA voted paedophilia out of the disease book in 1993.
social construct my arse!

Anonymous said...

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.

I have nothing against two parent heterosexual families. In fact, my parents belong to one, along
with my sister and I. They're doting grandparents
twice over. My sister Janine is a solo mum due to
her idiot irresponsible husband, who walked out on
his parental responsibilities due to the fact that
my baby nephew Jordan has a condition called
osteogenesis imperfecta ('brittle bone' syndrome).

Happily though, Mum and Dad are relishing the chance
to be active grandparents. Dote dote dote. I'm just
as bad, though :)

Mum is from a Maori (Ngai Tahu) background, and she and
her sisters have always had a stronger sense of whanau. In my case, that includes my partner Jeff and Tash, our daughter. As for Dad, he and mum are going to celebrate their forty-eighth wedding anniversary next month. However, Mum and he are the only ones of his paternal generation still together.

So, yeah, I don't think there's anything wrong with two parent het families. Or two same-sex parents and their children, which I am happily entangled in. Or solo mums, like my sister and baby nephew.

And wow, I come from a normal working-class Kiwi family of origin. Which just happens to reflect the diversity of NZ families today. Let's not stigmatise any of them.

Anonymous said...

As for the 'chicken' comment, hello??

Pitcairn Island?? Widespread *heterosexual*
paedophilia?? Why is *that* any less serious?

And thirtysomething socially inadequate straight
guys don't have teenage girlfriends barely over
the age of consent??

Let she or he who is beyond ethical riposte etc etc

Craig

Anonymous said...

You're right in part Craig but as usual absolutely wrong.

Pitcairn island is an aberation. (and rightly gets treated as such)
It doesn't represent an acceptance in the greater sub-culture of society that's why it's being prosecuted.
if guilty they should all go to jail, rapes rape.

The point is young (children) 10-14 aren't the thrust (pun) of hetero society.
but it is a preoccupation with a large part of homosexual society and it also appears that those who don't have that preoccupation keep quiet about the other half.
which isn't the case in hetero society.

why else does the homo sub-culture have the language it does?

Nowhere in general hetero culture do I find this preoccupation with this age group.
Nor do I find a language like "Chicken & boy scout" and other words to descibe the different types of child (as a sexual plaything).
Nor such language as to describe the "initiation" of same children into sexual activities.

That said the long term homo relationship is not the norm and sadly it is going that way for the hetero part of society as well.

In fact I think hetero society has only itself to blame giving non-heteros the ammunition for supporting their lifestyle choices by our behaviour towards marriage, committment, children's needs and societies long term needs.

Maybe the rise of homosexual activism is because of our not living out the best options for society and trashing the very values that underpin said society.
whether it be by our behaviour or by aquiecing to yours.
Now that's a thought isn't it.


Mike

Anonymous said...

Sorry, but that last comment was somewhat confused.
Surely, the majority of child sexual abuse cases
are perpetrated against female children, within
nuclear or extended families, by male relatives-
dads, stepfathers, brothers, uncles or male
cousins. In the case of my sister, and one of
my female cousins, it was an uncle.

I don't condone paedophilia at all. In fact, as
I've said beforehand, I am opposed to all child
sexual abuse, incest or paedophilia. Moreover,
due to the lesbian/gay entente cordiale of the
eighties and nineties in NZ, gay men sat down
and realised we had to deal with the realities
of same-sex incest and its distorting effects
on stable sexual development.

And I keep wondering why the Christian Right wilfully
ignores the existence of opposite-sex paedophile groups
like "Alessandra Dreams," which targets female children?

Shouldn't we oppose all forms of child sexual abuse,
child prostitution and child pornography? No matter what the gender of the perpetrator, or the victim?

Craig

Anonymous said...

Sorry, but that last comment was somewhat confused.
Surely, the majority of child sexual abuse cases
are perpetrated against female children, within
nuclear or extended families, by male relatives-
dads, stepfathers, brothers, uncles or male
cousins. In the case of my sister, and one of
my female cousins, it was an uncle.

I don't condone paedophilia at all. In fact, as
I've said beforehand, I am opposed to all child
sexual abuse, incest or paedophilia. Moreover,
due to the lesbian/gay entente cordiale of the
eighties and nineties in NZ, gay men sat down
and realised we had to deal with the realities
of same-sex incest and its distorting effects
on stable sexual development.

And I keep wondering why the Christian Right wilfully
ignores the existence of opposite-sex paedophile groups
like "Alessandra Dreams," which targets female children?

Shouldn't we oppose all forms of child sexual abuse,
child prostitution and child pornography? No matter what the gender of the perpetrator, or the victim?

Craig

Anonymous said...

Craig
The so called "Christian right" (and dare I say it, all real Christians) oppose all sexual union outside of a marriage except that between a man and a woman within their marriage.

This is what God (Jehovah) has proclaimed is healthy for individuals and society and from the perspective of the Christian world He knows what he's talking about.
After all He is God, we're not.

Not only that where man decides what is healthy, acceptable or normal/natural actually leads to breakdown of what God intended for us as Individuals and as a society.

That excludes everything else including children and adults no matter the genders.

But then this is self evident so your plaintive last sentence doesn't make sense either.
Mike