Queensland and Surrogacy
So Queensland is very close to passing altruistic surrogacy laws that would allow gay and lesbian couples, and single people as well as heterosexual couples to access or offer altruistic surrogacy and adoption.
These laws are nothing new. These laws bring us in line with the rest of Australia, because we are currently a ridiculous state who are living in the dark ages.
Nonetheless, even though the laws are passing parliament due to a Labor majority (even with two Labor members crossing the floor to vote against it - side-note here to give kudos to Labor for allowing a conscience vote), the vast majority of comments on news media sites are bigoted, narrow-minded and incredibly annoying and insulting.
But that in itself doesn't bother me. Everyone is entitled to their opinion on any given thing, even if I don't like the opinion.
My issue is with the fact that no one is explaining.
The two quotes (usually almost verbatim) that are popping up most often are:
'Is nobody thinking of the children? A child requires both a Mother AND a Father.'
'This opens the door for children to become commodities to be owned and purchased.'
Before I continue, I really need to emphasise a not-so-common argument that one of the LNP members put forward during parliament discussion - 'How can two lesbians raise a boy child? How will he use public restrooms at age 5, without a father to take him into the mens' room? He'll have to be taken into the womens' rest-room!'
Guys - I'd be willing to be that 99% of you were taken into the womens' rest room at least once when you were young, due to the fact that you were young, in a public place, and needed to use the bathroom, and your mum wouldn't send you into the mens' on your own. Similarly, girls occasionally get taken into the mens' room if they're out with their father, who is equally protective.
Okay, from here-on-in, some of this may be copied and pasted or paraphrased from a rant that I had in a facebook chat window, so I apologise for any awful formatting or typing.
Let's put aside gay couples for a moment and focus on single people who would choose to have a child regardless of their relationship status. At this point you'd have only a mother, or only a father...and you wouldn't be the first one in the world.
Mum dies. Dad dies. Dad walked out before baby was even born, wanting nothing to do with the idea. Mum isn't the maternal sort, and has left dad holding the baby with no other means of support.
...none of these have anything to do with surrogacy, but each of them result in a child having only a mother, or only a father. I'm pretty sure a fair selection of current adults would have grown up in a family like this, no worse for their experience, or lack of parental influence.
Now let's go back to gay couples, and include single people in the mix also. Gay couples, and to an extent single people, cannot accidentally have a baby. Gay couples especially generally need to think incredibly hard about the idea, be financially stable enough to afford IVF (or in future, surrogacy) and very possibly need to go through various forms of psychological testing or questioning before they're considered 'viable' for such things. It is very possible, in fact, that these gay couples and single people are some of the best families you could ever hope for. It's never going to be something that just kinda accidentally happened. It's going to be something that they have decided they're willing to dedicate their life towards on a hugely conscious level.
There have been statements made that this makes children into a commodity to be purchased - once you have the job and the white picket fence, you buy the child you can't have naturally. Nonetheless...are there not already children who are treated as commodities? Children who are raised by a nanny because their parents are too busy and too indifferent to devote time and love to them. Children who are raised as perfect little parent-moulds, children who are forced into pageants, drama classes and piano lessons so that mum or dad can live vicariously through the child and watch the child achieve things they never managed to.
So that's my opinion - but I don't expect everyone to just accept it. I long for lively debate, I long for these people to explain themselves and their opinions. I dislike that in order to state my opinion, it took me many paragraphs and a lot of reasoning, whereas to state their opinion, all they need to say is 'A child requires both a mother AND a father' and every man and his dog yells 'HEAR HEAR'.
I don't refute your right to an opinion. But I do request explanation. I want you to be able to tell me why, and argue your point when I rebut your initial statements.
WHY does a child need a mother and a father? what about an effeminate lesbian and a butch lesbian? what about a bear and a...whatever the effeminate gay boys are called? What about a single mother who has given up on finding a decent, gentle, honest man, but believes that she herself can be a fulfilling parent to either a boy or girl child? What about a single father who has so much love to give, but cannot commit to a typical relationship?
HOW does it open up the window to 'commodity children'? Do you honestly think that just because gay couples come under more scrutiny for wanting children, that they ONLY want them for the sake of show? Do you think that doesn't happen with rich couples who groom their children into being perfect little rich kids, rather than letting them grow into their own personalities?
HOW is a commodity child any worse than the neglected child who throws rocks at trains and is out on the street at 10pm because their bogan parents just don't care?
I WANT PEOPLE TO EXPLAIN THESE THINGS TO ME.