Sep 20, 2010

Same-s-x adoption: exposing the myths in Rundle’s stance

Guy Rundle has made a case against adoption by male same-s-x couples that is a hodgepodge of gut-driven opinion, writes Dr Tad Tietze, a public hospital psychiatrist.

Perhaps it’s an attempt to get with the “new paradigm” and find some points of agreement with his conservative enemies, but the usually dependable Guy Rundle has made a case against adoption by male same-s-x couples that is a hodgepodge of gut-driven opinion with an almost complete lack of evidentiary backing. Crikey readers have valiantly responded to his arguments from various angles, but I want to focus on four areas that render his views deeply suspect.

First, Rundle calls the NSW Parliament’s decision to allow same-s-x adoption “an enormous change in our understanding of what rules and conditions society should set” and that “the issue isn’t and can’t be constructed as a mere extension of consenting rights” in regard to same-s-x couples. This seems to be no more than a rhetorical flurry to distract from the fact that the main extension here is from the very “child-centred” principle that adoption law is already based on. The ban on same-s-x parents was in fact a politically determined exception to the principle Rundle so admires.

Free Trial

Proudly annoying those in power since 2000.

Sign up for a FREE 21-day trial to keep reading and get the best of Crikey straight to your inbox

By starting a free trial, you agree to accept Crikey’s terms and conditions


Leave a comment

8 thoughts on “Same-s-x adoption: exposing the myths in Rundle’s stance

  1. Jon Hunt

    Yes, Rundle wrote volumes of waffle when instead he could have simply got informed about what it was he was waffling on about. Everybody thinks they’re experts at everything but this is dangerous when these “experts” have influence.

  2. chinda63

    Right on.

    It’s all about Mazlow’s Hierarchy of Needs, not about the gender of those fulfilling those needs. You nail Mazlow and you have parenting down pretty much, whether you are man, woman, intersex etc.

    That is what scares the fundies because it represents a slap in the face to everything they believe in. After all, what was God on about in the Garden of Eden if not creating the only type of family that our society wants and needs – to the exclusion of all others, they’ll have us believe?

    I call a big BS on that and thank you for your contribution to the debate.

    PS I wonder how many of those opposed to same-s-x parenting are atheists?

  3. Meski

    @Jon: I certainly don’t assume that the media are experts at anything but having an opinion. And that’s all Guy’s article was, an opinion piece. But it doesn’t stop me from reading future articles of his.

  4. amy c

    Thanks for a great article. Still have not got over my disappointment with Rundle’s piece on this, so it is good to see something critical of it published.

  5. baal

    I had a feeling – familiar as it happens – that Mr Rundle hadn’t done any research on this one. But he sure got a lot of attention.

  6. John james

    What alot of nonsense.
    A poor man’s guide to Marx meets Freud.
    This guy clearly works in the public sector, for a good reason.
    No doctor, with any sense, in the private sector, would refer to him.

  7. electricshade

    @ John James

    I see John Bowlby referenced in the article, not Marx or Freud.
    The Wiki article on him doesn’t mention anything about Marx, influences or otherwise, it has him as from an ‘Upper-Middle Class’ background & even as ‘effectively ostracized by the psychoanalytic community’.

    No matter I guess, as with Guy’s article, a lack of evidence is no impediment to fear of that ever present nebulous threat from queers/socialists/pinko commie f**s (reclaimed terms, shouldn’t even have to use asterisks there not to have the pc demons come flapping down but hey) anyhow. As you say ‘Nonsense’.

Share this article with a friend

Just fill out the fields below and we'll send your friend a link to this article along with a message from you.

Your details

Your friend's details