Pratt: gay couples are not normal

Pratt: gay couples are not normal

Queensland independent MP and ex-One Nation party member Dorothy Pratt has stood by her statements on same-sex adoption, claiming married heterosexual couples provide children with the most advantages.

During parliamentary debate on Queensland’s adoption laws, Pratt said gay and de facto couples should be stopped from adopting.

In my opinion a child deserves a mother and a father if possible and that whether you regard homosexual activity as a normal part of life or not, I don’t, she said in Parliament.

Speaking to Sydney Star Observer, Pratt claimed her statement was about societal norms. It is not normal, is what I said, and I stand by that, she said.

Can they have children? What is the norm in Australia? The norm for a family, whether you disagree or not, is a man and a woman, procreation to have a child. If you have a gay relationship, without medical assistance or some other interference you cannot conceive a child. If we were all gay, life would not go on, because you need assistance to have a child in a gay relationship -” that is not the norm.

For instance, if I’m in Africa, it would be the norm to see a majority of coloured people, it would be less normal to see a majority of white people, and that’s what I’m saying is the norm.

Pratt said she was unconcerned about how gay and lesbian members of her electorate -” Nanango, next to Brisbane -” might respond.

Unfortunately the bill was not about gay people, the bill was about children going up for adoption. They are my primary focus.

We’re looking for the absolute best possible scenario for a child, and in my opinion it is to have a male and a female in a marriage to give them that stability. That’s not saying that de facto relationships can’t give them the love and whatnot either, but there are so few children out there and we have to look for the best possible relationship.

I think because of the way society is structured at the moment, there is a negativity about gay relationships and whether we like it or not, as children grow up -” and I have witnessed this -” a child of a gay relationship was very defensive, right from the word go. It’s unfortunate a child is put in that position to be defensive about their parents.

You May Also Like

26 responses to “Pratt: gay couples are not normal”

  1. I agree with both sides, everyone should have personal rights for them self and should not need to fight for it. Gays should be reconised as normal people who just do abnormal sexual activity. I am sure this statement will outrage some but without putting me down or calling me names i am sure you know what i mean, its been nature’s way that male and female do thier thing over many years of evolution, what gay ppl do is abnormal. But gay couple who are ready to have children are loving people and prob more loving and responsible then the avg hetero couple who have children. TRhe reason couple want to have children is to give unselfish love and care, the most noble of all human acts and the most common as well is parents willing to giv e all thier energy so that their child can grow up happy with love and for them to feel protected. I am sure both gay and hetero couples can give this to thier children equally. Sexual orientation make no difference to the kind of love and commitment we can give. They are however a few difference. and i am speaking genreally here. A hetero couple can give a father’s type of love and a woman’s wamr nuturins type of love where as gay couple being 1 sex type can only give either male of woman tyoe of love. A gay couple or hetero couple can both give the same amount of love, amount of commitment and sacrifice but lets face the facts here, men adn women are different more then their genitals. They behave and love differently. Gay couple wont be able to give “male and female love” to thier child. They can try though with one partner emulating the other sex’s behavior but it will alwasy fall short of the real thing. The child will never have the love of a normal hetero couple’s love.
    I do feel sorry for all the gay couples who want children but face the unaccepting behaviour of this world, the church’s and societies view of a normal couple. This issue is still at the forefront of debate and controversy and. In theory every thign should be fair, everyone shoudl accept everyone for who they are, and children of gay couples shoudl not have to defend thier parent’s sexual orientaion but the fact is chidlren of gay couples will be subjected to more teasing and ignorance of other children in school picking on them for haveing diff parents to deal with along with the normal other growing up pressures.
    But untill the whoel world accepts gay couples parenting rights as normal, i think it is unfair on the children for them to deal with more of these controversial issues from the moment the moment get go. I know gay couple are fighting this battle of rights now, but what about the rights of the children to live a normal life? they have no choice to this. DO gay parents couples really think a child of gay parents wil be albe to have a life the same as a normal hetero couple’s child? A hetero couple’s child will have an easier childhood with less controversy to duel with during their short years of innocence growing up, they wont have to deal with being teased in school albeit by ignorant other children who will pick on whoever not normal but fact is they will have to deal with extra issues becuase they have gay parents.
    For gay couples who think i should have the right to have children, I deserve the rights, I am entitled to … . What about the chidren? I know what you want , but what is best for the young children? should they have to deal with growing up in an abnormal family? deep down inside we all know it is preferable to have a child grow up in a home with a father and mother with love, yes families do break up but we would want them to have the best chance possible for an umcomplicated childhood. If you believe a child is better off growing up in a gay couple’s home rather then a hetero couple’s home, everything else being equal or comparable ofcourse, you are in denial.
    There is no solution to gay couples wanting children, its either the gay couples get what they want but the child does not get a choice and miss out on a normal childhood and never feels either a father’s love or a mother’s love.
    Live is not fair as simple as that, we cant have everyting we want but it is our birth right to have a father’s and mother’s love. unless couple’s can give that and this applies to all couple,s, they should not be conceiving nor adopting

  2. It’s always a fascinating piece of warped logic. Gays and lesbians can’t raise kids because they don’t have stable, married lives. And no doubt whenever the issue of same-sex marriage is raised she’s first in line declaring they can’t because they don’t produce children. Add to that the idea that adoption should be restricted to people who can easily have biological children. And of course none of the obvious flaws in her argument matter to her, because it all comes down to ‘Dot hates fags’ anyway.

  3. “If you have a gay relationship, without medical assistance or some other interference you cannot conceive a child. If we were all gay, life would not go on, because you need assistance to have a child in a gay relationship -” that is not the norm.”

    What about hetrosexuals who are go through the IVF program? Is she against this as well?

    I went to her website and do you know what I think? I think she is gay. Maybe we should all bombard her with this and see how she reacts.

    I can’t understand the government. They accept same sex couples if one or both are on the dole. But when it comes to marriage and adoption they are dead against it. I wish they would make up their minds.

  4. Hey, if the norm is bigotry. I recommend you buy a stainless steel mirror, Dorothy. Can’t shatter in response to the reflection of your ‘normative’ lack-of-human-decency. Reaffirming stereotypes that need not be reaffirmed for their pervasive filth to be apparent. Wow, what a trail blazer for the future are you, Dorothy. I salute your courage easily pandering to the reddest necked inhabitants of this wonderland. HA

  5. -œFor instance, if I’m in Africa, it would be the norm to see a majority of coloured people, it would be less normal to see a majority of white people, and that’s what I’m saying is the norm.

    This should really be (mis)quoted at her next election campaign to reinforce the view of One Nation.
    “a majority of white people, that’s what I’m saying is the norm”.
    I honestly have no idea why she said this or how she felt it would be useful. Did she mean that we should keep all the darkies in Africa where they belong, and all us whites in Australia? Christ.

  6. Dorothy Pratt look at yourself in the mirror if you can afford one – your the one that is NOT normal!!!!!

  7. I sent her a letter asking her nicely to say a formal sorry to every gay person – I got no response. Typical.

    We pay our fair share in taxes and want the same exact rights to adopt children jointly, donate blood and get civil married – is that so much to ask for????

    We are not asking for a great big trip to the moon or a 10-lane super dual carriageway highway here!!!!

  8. I have friends in my church who are raised by gay parents, and they are completely happy, and most importantly without complaint. It is not the gay couple’s fault that children have to explain themselves, it is society’s prejudice. So, if Pratt wants the children of gay couples having to explain themselves, then she should put effort into persuading the community to accept gay couples, not using her primitive homophobic opinions to dis-credit gay couples.

  9. What a prat. btw, “prat” is the gluteous maximus, as in landing on one’s bum is a prat fall. I can see why Denis Pratt changed his name (to Quentin Crisp), and always giggle at Dick Pratt : ) (exits right, singing: land of governor generals)

  10. The reason, Pratt, that children find themselves “put in that position to be defensive about their parents” is because of bigots like you implying that their parents are abnormal.

    She wasn’t saying “not normal” in a statistical sense. Nor did she merely mean “uncommon”. She made a distinction between something she approves of (heterosexual parents) and something you doesn’t (same-sex parents) then denigrated the latter on that basis by arguing that gays make inferior parents.

    Very small minded. Shame, lady, shame.

  11. Dorothy Pratt, and I shudder to suffix that with -œMP, stated, It’s unfortunate a child is put in that position to be defensive about their parents. Pratt is clearly clutching at straws with weak poorly researched argument which in turn may offend -“ possibly even children in her electorate. In Abigail Garner’s -œFamilies Like Mine: Children of Gay Parents Tell it Like it is-Ž Garner outlines how -œopposition to their parents’ right to have children feels like an attack on their very existence. What Pratt may not understand is her comments can be harmful to those children already living with homosexual parents in un-recognised unions.

    When Pratt reaffirmed her enjoyment to the bill in question not having allowances for homosexual couples to adopt children, she thought she was thinking of the children concerned. Adoption is not solely bringing a new child to parents they have never lived with. Adoption can also legitimise the relationship of a -œstep parent in that child’s life. An example of such would occur when a child was living with their biological mother and her homosexual partner also resided with them. If the partner wanted to legally legitimise their relationship with that child adoption would be necessary. If adoption is not allowed the relationship between only one of the homosexual parents will remain truly legitimate -“ which inturn may affect the running of the family unit.

    Pratt truly should sit back and reflect on her comments as in turn her comments help fuel illegitimate relationships -“ what one may think she may wish to stop? There will always be homosexual parents with children, and not allowing homosexuals equal rights creates more illegitimate relationships. I think it is time for Pratt to truly think of the children and if open mindedness is the struggle, think of the children in her electorate.

  12. this govt could support that, because they have shown that they really arent interested in full equality, just tinkering. tinkering isnt equality.

  13. Some Heterosexual people murder, rape, and torture children every year. Does This mean they should be allowed to have children?

    The Australian Christian Lobby is now promoting this politician as the way forward. How could our Prime Minister support all of these people!

  14. I’d suggest that since half the population is below average intelligence, Ms Pratt-Fall might be speaking for that group. What else would anyone expect from a racist, homophobic, out of touch party like One-Nation? One Nation proves that the average intelligence of a hate group is calculated by adding the IQ’s of the group members and dividing that sum by the number of observations squared. eg … 10 people in the group with individual IQ’s of 100 … so the calculation is 1000/10(squared) … = 1000/100 = 10 … barely able to fog up a mirror.

  15. So basically, she’s saying that because gay people and their children experience prejudice in Australian society, rather than working to change that prejudice, gay people should just not have children and have every obstacle put in their path to prevent them.

    The same argument was made in this country in the debate before the end of the white Australia policy- that whites and non-whites should be prevented from marrying because the offspring of those unions might experience prejudice too.

    Today, while bi-racial children are still not Ms’ Pratt’s “majority”, they are accepted by the vast majority of Australians- the same will be the case with same-sex parented families given time.

  16. “I have witnessed this -” a child of a gay relationship was very defensive, right from the word go.”

    Huh. I wonder why.

  17. Pratt is no different from Kevin Rudd and the Federal Labor Party on this. Remember Kevin Rudd is going to the Australian Christian Lobby to speak about how we should not have children at there National Conference of the ALC.

    Labor and Pratt are the same.

  18. I disagree with Dorothy Pratt on the matter of same-sex adoption.

    I do not believe that the gender of the parent determines their ability as a parent.

    Parenting is a skill demonstrated by the ability to create a bond of mutual love between the parent and child that cannot be broken and does not diminish with time.

    Both my parents were heterosexual and they both failed to create that bond. They were both homophobic.

    Dorothy Pratt did not express an opinion about who should adopt homosexual children.

    Perhaps if she was given the choice of adopting a heterosexual child or a homosexual child, she would reject the homosexual child and adopt the heterosexual child.

    Perhaps if her children were homosexuals she would hate her own children.

  19. Ms Pratt knows her electorate:

    “Pratt said she was unconcerned about how gay and lesbian members of her electorate -” Nanango, next to Brisbane -” might respond.”

    That’s because many gays are racist, happy to vote in the likes of Pratt and will ignore her homophobic remarks. Racism (and self-hatred) will do that. After all, more than few gays voted for John Howard.

  20. Fortunately, the redneck alumni from One Nation are not the norm and the best possible outcome for children is not to place them with such people.

  21. “there is a negativity about gay relationships” – But Pratt don’t you think that when you claim that homosexuality is not normal, its just going to reinforce the publics negativity about gay relationships ?