Gay marriage ?

[Guest The Tweed Pig]

Gay marriage is illegal in Australia, should it be ?

I'm against gay marriage. I'm not anti gay and I'm firmly in the camp (no pun intended) that homosexuality is not a choice. I have no problem with civil unions and no problem with laws that reflect such unions, but marriage is a sanctity that at its core involves procreation. It is reserved for a man and a woman. Yes, I'm aware that many couple choose to remain childless.

I'm also against homosexuals adopting children, or having access to IVF. You know, sometimes you've just got to accept your lot in life. A child's rights and best interests are far more important to me than a homosexual couple's rights. Afterall, it should be about the child and what is the best possible environment for them. That's not to say that there aren't children presently in terrible heterosexual family environments, where they're subjected to all kinds of regular abuse. It's also not to say that a gay couple wouldn't give their child all the love in the world, of course most would. But I've no doubt that a child's needs are best served by heterosexual parents. Let me be clear, I'm not suggesting that it would be disastrous for a child to grow up in a homosexual household, but I am suggesting that it's not the best possible outcome for a child. Once again, a child's best interests are far more important to me than the adoptive parents interests - straight or gay. For me, it's all about the child.

I do want to point out that I think that it's rubbish that a child in a homosexual household is more likely to become a gay adult themselves, or that any gay couple would try to convert the child. I see such views and comments as utter nonsense. As I said earlier, homosexuality is not a choice.

I have no doubt that I'll be accused of living in the past by some, or asked what's it got to do with me, etc. It's simply an opinion. I also have no doubt that I'll have some questioning my view that a child is worse off with gay parents. I'm not dedicated to the issue, but I enjoy discussing such social matters.

Despite what some may think, your opinions do interest me. My gut feel is that more people would support gay marriage than not. I'll happily sit in the minority if that's the case.

[Captain Jack Jordan 32]

Hey Tweedy ,

In my opinion marriage was a device to keep people and property tied to their respective churches under their great and dangerous god .

You can marry your goldfish if you want and it doesn't bother me or devalue my relationship in any way .

I'm for gay marriage-only if they double the carbon tax to introduce it and make Bob Brown and Penny Wong Presidents of the Melbourne Club .

And let all the "boat people" in while they are at it .(Not Brighton Yacht Club boat people)

Maybe a heftier tax on mining could help pay for all their weddings .

What do you think?

[Adzman 2,154]

Go for gold! More weddings means more big parties.

Life is too short to hate on people. Doesn't effect me in the slightest, as long as I get an invite to at least one shin-dig!

[45HG 1,559]

Scientists have shown that gay marriage actually killed the dinosaurs.

[Dee Fan 3,247]

I have no problem with Gay marriage although i'm not sure how many would take the offer up.

The issue of adoption has to be considered from a female as well as male point of view. There a lot of lesbian couples that have, or can have kids through various means and it certainly isn't illegal, so I guess you would have to consider adoption.

Male partnerships are generally more insecure and don't seem last as long so I guess you have to look at the longevity of the relationship and the intent of the couple involved.

There are plenty of kids being raised by single mothers, divorcees and separated women so it's not as if it is a rare occurrence; some work out ok others don't. There are some kids that are raised by their fathers, I'm one so that can work, some on here may disagree with that though.

[Supermercado 2,802]

100% - any loving relationship between adults is a plus for society. No need to deny people the same rights as everyone else just because some ye olde book doesn't endorse it.

(and lets be fair straight people have hardly covered the 'sacred' art of marriage in glory over the years...)

[Guest The Tweed Pig]

Although I disagree, the last two opinions are welcomed. I should have set a standard IQ threshold of 115 before allowing people to post and I could have avoided the other contributions.

Why do gays need to be "married". Marriage is between a man and a woman. Why can't they have some other ceremony that has equal rights to marriage ? Why should the traditional concept of a marriage, which has been around for time immemorial, be changed to satisfy the wishes of others ?

[e25 5]

Why does anyone need to be married, gay or straight?

It's formal recognition of their commitment to one another, and it does have other practical implications, although even then, they can be achieved without the act of marriage (a side-effect of gays not currently being able to do so, inadvertently diluting its relevance?).

Personally I don't really care, and I think marriage is a bit of an antiquated institution.

I have plenty of friends that are practically married, but haven't yet taken that step purely because of the cost involved.

The act of marriage won't really change anything.

I know that my girlfriend would like it one day, and I might, but I know if I do, it'll only be done as a gift to her.

To me it is relatively meaningless.

I don't see marriage as necessarily having anything to do with procreation though.

But if we're going to go down the road of discussing gay couples having children, can you explain to me why exactly it's not the best possible environment for children?

I can't think of a decent reason.

The sole factors in determining the best environment should be food, shelter, clothing and above all, loving parents.

How exactly are "a child's needs best served by heterosexual parents"?

It is all about the child, but what can a heterosexual couple give that a gay couple cannot?

I concede that instinctively it doesn't feel right to me, but then I need to question why I feel that way and whether it is rational to do so.

And after consideration, I don't think it is.

Edited August 11, 2011 by e25

[H_T 3,049]

I don't see marriage as necessarily having anything to do with procreation though.

But if we're going to go down the road of discussing gay couples having children, can you explain to me why exactly it's not the best possible environment for children?

I can't think of a decent reason.

A father & mother ?

Best possible environment may be subjective, but I'm simply of the opinion a child born into the world needs a father and mother. I don't feel strongly about it, I just think that is how it should be. And I don't have anything to support my view other than I think it's the best environment from an overall point of view.

But that's my opinion.

TTP - were you inspired to create this thread re: news on Penny Wong ?

[Nasher 33,617]

I'm against gay marriage. I'm not anti gay and I'm firmly in the camp (no pun intended) that homosexuality is not a choice. I have no problem with civil unions and no problem with laws that reflect such unions, but marriage is a sanctity that at its core involves procreation. It is reserved for a man and a woman. Yes, I'm aware that many couple choose to remain childless.

I can't see how there can be any intrinsic link between marriage and procreation when procreation has been occuring long before before we had the social intelligence to invent something like marriage (and so has homosexuality, I'll wager). Given that marriage is simply an artificial construct of society, I don't understand why what is "allowable" can't bend and change as our understanding of socialisation improves.

You already touched on this point but didn't address it - is a marriage between a man and a woman less valid if they choose not to procreate?

I'm also against homosexuals adopting children, or having access to IVF. You know, sometimes you've just got to accept your lot in life. A child's rights and best interests are far more important to me than a homosexual couple's rights. Afterall, it should be about the child and what is the best possible environment for them. That's not to say that there aren't children presently in terrible heterosexual family environments, where they're subjected to all kinds of regular abuse. It's also not to say that a gay couple wouldn't give their child all the love in the world, of course most would. But I've no doubt that a child's needs are best served by heterosexual parents. Let me be clear, I'm not suggesting that it would be disastrous for a child to grow up in a homosexual household, but I am suggesting that it's not the best possible outcome for a child. Once again, a child's best interests are far more important to me than the adoptive parents interests - straight or gay. For me, it's all about the child.

Other than breastfeeding (which Australians have an appallingly low rate of anyway in terms of who breastfeeds in the first place and then how long they do so for), I don't see what a loving gay male couple can't offer that can be offered by a heterosexual couple. I believe that in raising children, the most important element is love. Everything else is just stuff that lies around the edges. Could you elaborate in what way it's not the "best possible outcome"? Be specific: what would be missing from the child's life as a result of growing up in a household with gay parents?

[Guest The Tweed Pig]

A father & mother ?

Best possible environment may be subjective, but I'm simply of the opinion a child born into the world needs a father and mother. I don't feel strongly about it, I just think that is how it should be. And I don't have anything to support my view other than I think it's the best environment from an overall point of view.

But that's my opinion.

TTP - were you inspired to create this thread re: news on Penny Wong ?

I love politics HT and am proud to be a conservative. The left are far more willing to express their opinions publicly than conservatives but I'm happy to represent the usual silent majority, although I hasten to add that I speak for nobody other than myself. There will always be degrees of agreement and disagreement within conservatives.

I definitely take notice of nature as one reason. If two men were able to procreate naturally then I may have a different view, but nature dictates that a man and woman is required. We can't always get what we want in life and I'll put my faith in nature's direction.

Also, does anyone think that a child of a gay couple doesn't face different challenges ? Does the child wonder why they have no Mother or Father ? Do they wonder why they're different ? Do they have to explain those differences throughout their life ? Are their parents monogamous ? Straight parents may have monogamous issues too, but it's undisputed that the homosexual community are far less likely to be monogamous. What chance does the child have of having siblings ? Some won't care about this angle and there are plenty of people that are an 'only child' in the world, but it's more likely to be enforced upon them with gay parents. What if the parents split up ? Are their more challenges for a child of gay men if the family unit breaks ? I'm sure there are many more issues, or challenges that surround a child of a gay couple. And for what reason ? Because they want the child that nature says is impossible ? To me it's selfish. Accept that you can't have children rather than place a child in a situation and then teach that child how best to deal with their differences. Why should a child have to learn how to best adapt to a situation not of their choosing ? How about they not be put in that situation in the first place ? You can't naturally conceive so just deal with it.

Dawn Stefanowicz wrote a book titled "Out from under", where she details her life with a homosexual Father. Those that disagree with me will highlight that he wasn't in a monogamous relationship with another male, but the many challenges she faced with a gay Father would be the same with a caring homosexual couple. She is very against homosexual parents due to her lifelong experiences.

As I've already stated, for me it's all about the child. And I'm far from convinced that anything other than a Mother and Father is best for a child.

As for Wong ? I'd rather not discuss individuals, but yes, the news precipitated my thread.

[Johnny Karate 559]

I consider myself libertarian so why not? I'm in favour of gay marriage, I think the key issue is whether it is labelled marriage or not especially for those whom hold similar views to TTP. As long as homosexual couples are given the same maritial and de-facto rights as heterosexual couples.

As for the ability to adopt or have children, I again understand where the OP is coming from but still sit marginally on the other side of the fence. Whether homosexual or heterosexual I think people need to consider whether they are the right sort of people to be parents. There may well be a certain social stigma associated with being the child of a homosexual but I suspect much like that of the stigma that was once associated with single parents that will fade with time.

[Jaded No More 68,974]

Love it love. It knows no boundaries or gender and who are we to judge who should or shouldn't be allowed to marry.

50% of heterosexual marriages end in divorce. Should we start preventing heterosexuals from getting married if we believe they are unfit to do so?

It is not our place to pass judgement or indeed get involved in the personal lives of people. Just as I have no issues with divorce, abortion, IVF or adoption for single parents/gay parents, I have no issues with gay marriages.

The notion that one way is the only way is just wrong. I am not religious or morally rightious enough to give a shite and I think that as long as you are happy and not harming others, you should be left alone.

[Guest The Tweed Pig]

I can't see how there can be any intrinsic link between marriage and procreation when procreation has been occuring long before before we had the social intelligence to invent something like marriage (and so has homosexuality, I'll wager). Given that marriage is simply an artificial construct of society, I don't understand why what is "allowable" can't bend and change as our understanding of socialisation improves.

You already touched on this point but didn't address it - is a marriage between a man and a woman less valid if they choose not to procreate?

Other than breastfeeding (which Australians have an appallingly low rate of anyway in terms of who breastfeeds in the first place and then how long they do so for), I don't see what a loving gay male couple can't offer that can be offered by a heterosexual couple. I believe that in raising children, the most important element is love. Everything else is just stuff that lies around the edges. Could you elaborate in what way it's not the "best possible outcome"? Be specific: what would be missing from the child's life as a result of growing up in a household with gay parents?

With regard to your first point, some religions, including Christianity and Hinduism, hold the tenet that marriage is a sacred relationship, a sacrament, and a divine covenant meant for procreation and continuation of family lineage. Now you may not agree with this view, but I happen to.

I've answered the second question in your last paragraph elsewhere.

I wish people were as invested with ridding this country with a diabolical carbon dioxide tax and its disastrous ramifications as they seem to be with gay marriage.

Edited August 11, 2011 by The Tweed Pig

[Supermercado 2,802]

The argument about how kids are automatically better off with a mother and a father seems to ignore the fact that a great deal of people procreating are absolute drop kicks.

I'll support banning same-sex couples having kids when somebody does the same for filth, rock-bottom M/F couples.

[Jaded No More 68,974]

The argument about how kids are automatically better off with a mother and a father seems to ignore the fact that a great deal of people procreating are absolute drop kicks.

I'll support banning same-sex couples having kids when somebody does the same for filth, rock-bottom M/F couples.

Absolutely 100% spot on.

I worked in childcare for years and I can tell you from first hand experience how many fwit parents there are in the world. Parents who don't want their kids, and who certainly don't know how to raise them.

And there are millions of orphaned and abused children in the world who would be better off with loving homosexual parents, and if given the choice would absolutely jump at the chance of having loving parents, regardless of their gender.

Are you against mixed race or faith marriages? Does it bother you if people of different religions get married? Because gay marriage is exactly the same.

I have a very close friend who recently came out and it would break my heart if in the future he gets denied the right to marriage and a family if he chooses to have one, because he would be a brilliant father and partner and nobody has the right to take that away from him.

[Guest The Tweed Pig]

The argument about how kids are automatically better off with a mother and a father seems to ignore the fact that a great deal of people procreating are absolute drop kicks.

I'll support banning same-sex couples having kids when somebody does the same for filth, rock-bottom M/F couples.

That's a very poor argument. I equate it to people saying that religion is bad because there are zealots, or that because of peadophile priests I have no faith in religion.

They're self-serving arguments.

Edited August 11, 2011 by The Tweed Pig

[Captain Jack Jordan 32]

That's a very poor argument.

Not in my opinion .

You need a license to drive or own a gun ?

You should need one to breed as well .

the world is overpopulated anyway .

[Jaded No More 68,974]

That's a very poor argument. I equate it to people saying that religion is bad because there are zealots, or that because of peadophile priests I have no faith in religion.

They're self-serving arguments.

You never explained why, if in your opinion the point of marriage is to procreate, is it OK for heterosexual couples to get married and not procreate (we're talking by choice obviously), but it's not OK for gay couples to do so?

Besides, I find the whole notion of marriage being a sacrade union as utter crap. That notion went out the window when people start getting divorced as often as they changed their underpants. Or when people started getting married for self serving reasons like getting citizenship, or money.

Even putting aside your unsubstantiated notion that kids are better off with heterosexual parents (has this ever been actually proven by anyone on a large scale? Because for every unhappy kid growing up with gay parents I can find you 20 unhappy kids growing up with straight parents), it still has no barrings on your very contradictory views about gay marriage.

I know you understand that being gay is not choice, and yet you still find it acceptable that gay people don't have the same equal rights as those who are born heterosexual. That's almost like saying that if you are born with black skin you are different and should have different rights to those born with white skin. Both are silly notions that completely dismiss the individual characteristics of people and makes broad judgements based purely on one genetic trait.

If you love someone you should be able to marry them. If you want children and have the emotional, physical and financial means to support them, you should be able to have them. Race, religion, ethnicity and sexuality should never be an issue, and in fact, apart from sexuality none of those are in modern day society.

Edited August 11, 2011 by Jaded

[Adzman 2,154]

Although I disagree, the last two opinions are welcomed. I should have set a standard IQ threshold of 115 before allowing people to post and I could have avoided the other contributions.

Why do gays need to be "married". Marriage is between a man and a woman. Why can't they have some other ceremony that has equal rights to marriage ? Why should the traditional concept of a marriage, which has been around for time immemorial, be changed to satisfy the wishes of others ?

Does you church let you wear coloured shirts, or is that too flamboyant? Seriously, the gay community couldn't give a flying fark what you do with your spare time so why should you care what they do? I couldn't care less if they get married. What business is it of ours.

Take up stamp collecting if you need a hobby.

[H_T 3,049]

The argument about how kids are automatically better off with a mother and a father seems to ignore the fact that a great deal of people procreating are absolute drop kicks.

Nobody said everyone's perfect.

[45HG 1,559]

Nobody said everyone's perfect.

Not sure how this fits...

[H_T 3,049]

Not sure how this fits...

Not sure ?

Of course there are a few dropkicks, but IMO that's a poor argument.

[Guest The Tweed Pig]

You never explained why, if in your opinion the point of marriage is to procreate, is it OK for heterosexual couples to get married and not procreate (we're talking by choice obviously), but it's not OK for gay couples to do so?

Besides, I find the whole notion of marriage being a sacrade union as utter crap. That notion went out the window when people start getting divorced as often as they changed their underpants. Or when people started getting married for self serving reasons like getting citizenship, or money.

I know you understand that being gay is not choice, and yet you still find it acceptable that gay people don't have the same equal rights as those who are born heterosexual.

If you love someone you should be able to marry them. If you want children and have the emotional, physical and financial means to support them, you should be able to have them.

"You never explained why, if in your opinion the point of marriage is to procreate, is it OK for heterosexual couples to get married and not procreate (we're talking by choice obviously), but it's not OK for gay couples to do so?"

I didn't say that procreation is the only historical tenet of marriage, it's one of the historical tenets of marriage in some religions. In ancient Greece singles and childless men were treated with disdain. But clearly they weren't encouraged to have children outside of marriage.

Heterosexual couples can please themselves if they have children, but it doesn't change one of the original bedrocks of marriage for many civilizations and religions - procreation. And of course it's ok for gay couples not to have children, in fact, I encourage it.

"Besides, I find the whole notion of marriage being a sacrade union as utter crap. That notion went out the window when people start getting divorced as often as they changed their underpants."

You can think whatever you like. I'm simply giving you a history lesson. Please yourself if you think it's crap. I assume you won't take vows if you marry and won't marry in a church. Your choice.

"I know you understand that being gay is not choice, and yet you still find it acceptable that gay people don't have the same equal rights as those who are born heterosexual."

Of course homosexuals are born with equal rights. They can marry if they choose and thousands have. Although I suspect that a homosexual marrying a woman wouldn't be terribly appealing to most.

I'm a very slack Catholic. I go to church once a year. I don't agree with every doctrine of Catholicism, but I do agree that marriage is for a man and a woman and I hope that the faith I belong to never changes their stance on the issue. I can't imagine they will. If gays want to marry and are fine with it not being recognised by Catholicism then go ahead. They can call it what they like.

"If you love someone you should be able to marry them."

You can. As long as you're planning on marrying someone of the opposite sex. What's wrong with a civil union where the couple has the same rights of a married couple ? Explain it to me. And why do you believe that marriage has only been allowed between heterosexuals for thousands of years ? Why do you think that it's still illegal in Australia ? Clearly plenty of people disagree with you.

Btw, I'm always amused when people talk of "modern society". I'm amused when they try and portray all previous generations as knuckle dragging morons. It's the same when people say "we're still doing this is 2011 ?". Do they realise that people were saying the same thing in 1574, or 1812, or 1972 and that it will be heard in 2211 ?

Riddle me this oh enlightened ones. You talk of rights and want me to prove that children will be disadvantaged with gay parents, but why should the onus be on me to prove that children will be adversely effected ? Why isn't the onus on those advocating gay parentage to prove that children won't be disadvantaged ? Afterall, the child's best interests are all that I care about. Imo, some countries have bowed too quickly to lobbyists that were all up in arms about gay "rights". The children's rights are of far more interest to me and I don't believe that nearly enough research has been done to prove that it is in the best interests of a child to have gay parents. If it was I suspect that nature would have provided for it.

If gay marriage is legalised then it's obvious there will be an increase in the amount of children with gay parents. Seeing as I believe that children are better served by heterosexual parents then it's pretty obvious why I'm against gay marriage. The less children with gay parents is a better outcome in my eyes.

[mauriesy 7,357]

All the gay couples I know are loving and caring both as individuals and together. They make better parents than many of the dysfunctional families with heterosexual parents.

The only real objection I can see to gay marriage is a fear of homosexuality becoming institutionalised and normalised, and a concern about the 'role models' children would supposedly be subjected to i.e. the irrational belief that children need a father and mother figure regardless of how poor, violent, uncaring, neglectful or abusive they may be.