Gay marriage ?

[Guest The Tweed Pig]

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.

"All the gay couples I know are loving and caring both as individuals and together."

Is anyone suggesting that that's not the norm ?

"They make better parents than many of the dysfunctional families with heterosexual parents."

You're making unsubstantiated conclusions here ? Are you saying that a gay couple is immune from being dysfunctional ? What dysfunctional heterosexual families are you referring to ? Is anyone suggesting that it's good when a child is submersed in a dysfunctional family ?

That there are some dysfunctional heterosexual families how does it follow that that makes gay couples good parents ? How do you draw that conclusion ?

Let me say, Maurie, that I think that it would be 10 times worse being a child of a dysfunctional or abusive gay couple than a heterosexual one. I suspect that the isolation and despair would be aggravated. The knowledge of how to pyschologically treat such circumstances would be less known and have unique repercussions. Or is it strictly utopia in gay relationships ?

"The only real objection I can see to gay marriage is a fear of homosexuality becoming institutionalised and normalised"

No, I've provided my objections, marriage means a man and a woman. What are your objections to civil unions that provide the same rights as marriage ? I have concerns that if marriage is legalised for gays then far more children will end up with gay parents and I don't consider that an optimum outcome. I'm more interested in the best possible outcome for a child, not "gay rights".

"the irrational belief that children need a father and mother figure regardless of how poor, violent, uncaring, neglectful or abusive they may be."

You know an argument is poor when it's constantly centred around the minority of families that don't treat their children well and ignore the fact that the overwhelming majority of children grow up in loving yet imperfect households.

The best scenario for any child is to have a Mother and Father. Why do you find that an irrational conclusion, Maurie ? I'm staggered that anyone could argue that it's not. And any child is deserving of the best scenario. It doesn't mean they'll have a perfect life, but it's the optimum circumstance and I see no reason not to give every child the optimum circumstance.

You know, I'd hope that if I was gay I'd be prepared to accept that my life would be childless. I may not like it, but I hope I'd realise that my desires were secondary and not in the best interests of a child.

Do you think that there wouldn't be gays against the idea of other gays being parents for the reasons that have been mentioned ?

Edited August 12, 2011 by The Tweed Pig

[Jaded No More 68,965]

What the hell would stop gays from raising a family if they had the same legal rights of other heterosexual couples via a civil union?

I don't get your point about 'marriage' being disallowed, but civil unions being OK. WTF is the actual difference, the religious aspect?

[Guest The Tweed Pig]

What the hell would stop gays from raising a family if they had the same legal rights of other heterosexual couples via a civil union?

I don't get your point about 'marriage' being disallowed, but civil unions being OK. WTF is the actual difference, the religious aspect?

What's the difference ? It's not marriage, which is all I care about. Don't sneeze at how important religious approval is. It may not be to you, but it is to plenty of people, gays included.

Look, I couldn't give a flying what they do, as long as they're not legally "married" and they can't have children. If they have a civil union which bestows other legal rights and protections within their own relationship then that's fine with me. I wouldn't allow access to IVF or adoption options. As I'm stating ad nauseum, a child's best interest is more important to me than gays having a kid.

As unbelievable as it sounds, even if it was proven that a child being raised in a gay family was not in the best interests of its development I suspect many of you would still favour gays being able to have kids. You've really got no clue as to whether it's in the child''s best interest and you don't seem to care. You assume that they're no worse off and that seems to be good enough.

[rpfc 28,494]

I don't see how gays can claim a right to marriage. It is a religious construct - bound to the rules of said religion(s).

However, I therefore don't think the 'state' should give anyone a right to 'marriage.'

The state should stay out of it and only give rights to people for legal reasons - they can call it whatever they like - a 'civil union' a 'legally recognised partnership' whatever.

So one (namely two...) could have a union (the state cares only about that) and a marriage (their church cares about that) and that is it.

The US ideal of separation between the church and state works both ways.

I understand this only solves one aspect of the argument here but there it is.

[Dee Fan 3,247]

There are many Gays that already have children and live in sham marriages because they don't want to come out and announce they are Gay. I worked for a guy 30 years ago who had three children and suddenly left his wife for another guy he met at, of all places, AA. The other guy was openly Gay and they struck up a relationship and as they say, that was that. The Father one of the kids my Boys went to school with declared he was Gay and left his wife, he used to run a chain of hairdressing salons. You may know of him TTP?

I have no idea how the children coped with losing their father or the wife coped with losing her husband and whether the children suffered as a result.

I don't think it's a great idea for two guys to raise a kid, I guess I look back on my own childhood and wonder how I would have turned out if I had a Mother around the house, probably just as obnoxious as I am now I suppose.

.

[mauriesy 7,299]

It is a religious construct - bound to the rules of said religion(s).

Marriage is regulated by the Commonwealth Marriage Act, and is a Commonwealth power under section 51(xxi) of the Australian Constitution. You can get married by a civil celebrant without any reference to any religion whatsoever.

[Captain Jack Jordan 32]

If we can stop ignorant ,opinionated ,religious losers from breeding then I'll be happy .

How do we stop religion running like a plague through poor , uneducated people?

[Dee Fan 3,247]

If we can stop ignorant ,opinionated ,religious losers from breeding then I'll be happy .

How do we stop religion running like a plague through poor , uneducated people?

What about the ignorant, opinionated, non religious losers ; shouldn't we stop them from breeding too?

Which religions in particular the ones that blow each other up or the, well, other ones that blow each other up?

I'm not religious myself just curious as to why you'd stop at the religious ignoramuses.

[45HG 1,539]

I just don't understand the argument against same-sex marriage.

Who loses out from people who love each other marrying one another?

[Captain Jack Jordan 32]

What about the ignorant, opinionated, non religious losers ; shouldn't we stop them from breeding too?

Which religions in particular the ones that blow each other up or the, well, other ones that blow each other up?

I'm not religious myself just curious as to why you'd stop at the religious ignoramuses.

Why not?

Religion creates and exacerbates ignorance.

It's non-thought or Sky -god rules made up in the Middle East by beardy wankers .

in the three big Religions , breeding , property and the control of women are the express purpose of marriage .

Whats so Holy about some idiotic pig wanting to marry another.Why should homosexuals be exempt from the delusion of acceptance by churches .

Why should churches pay no tax- especially when the world is so over-populated and they continually tell everyone to breed ?

Middle Eastern religions should be liquidated ,and the money sent to pay for birth control in the Third world .

This would reduce the misery they have created on earth .

The reason for not allowing Gay weddings is so politically and legally , they can be denied rights in regards to property and children .

Most reasonable people would think this is wrong but Religious Muslims or Christians would keep denying them rights -so they can sell marriage

The Tweed Pig tells me marriage is sacrosanct .

Drunk straight hookers and thieves can get married in Vegas any night of the week.

Let homosexuals have the same rights as straight couples.

Why would you be against it?

[Guest The Tweed Pig]

Who loses out from people who love each other marrying one another?

It's not a matter of winning and losing. Marriage is for a man and a woman.

What's wrong with a civil union with rights to protect each other legally ? As long as gays aren't allowed to have children I couldn't care what they do.

I'm also against single women having access to IVF. I'm interested in what is best for a child.

[rpfc 28,494]

Marriage is regulated by the Commonwealth Marriage Act, and is a Commonwealth power under section 51(xxi) of the Australian Constitution. You can get married by a civil celebrant without any reference to any religion whatsoever.

Yeah...

I know...

I am saying that that Act should be repealed.

Marriage © is a religious construct that has been co-opted by early governments who favoured said religion.

I am not religious at all but I happen to respect belief quite a bit and if those religions do not wish to include people for whatever reason - they are free to do so.

Civil unions with legal rights for all - including gays. And marriage is a private thing - between a person(s) and their church.

[H_T 3,049]

Radicals ire is misplaced, dads do count

Miranda Devine, H-Sun.

[Guest The Tweed Pig]

Radicals ire is misplaced, dads do count

Miranda Devine, H-Sun.

An interesting article. She accurately portays those that decry and love to censor anyone with a difference of opinion. It's uncanny how often it's those from the left with these tendencies. How they love to twist scenarios and accuse you of views you don't have, but insist you must. They're a deceitful bunch.

The vast majority of people prefer to remain silent in the wake of their indignant and often ignorant outbursts. I'd rather confront their ill-conceived views head-on.

[Captain Jack Jordan 32]

It's not a matter of winning and losing. Marriage is for a man and a woman.

What's wrong with a civil union with rights to protect each other legally ? As long as gays aren't allowed to have children I couldn't care what they do.

I'm also against single women having access to IVF. I'm interested in what is best for a child.

Worry about whats best for yourself then .

There are some crap straight parents out there-

at least a gay home would be clean ( and tastefully decorated).

I'd be more worried about children left with members of a church-what an appalling record they already have .

[Axis of Bob 11,836]

Nice name change, Hanna.

Don't listen to what everyone else has to say. Calling yourself 'Lone Wolf' doesn't make you look like a desperate, attention seeking martyr.

You're definitely the most independent person that I've met that desperately tries to attach himself to other people and institutions.

[Guest Lone Wolf]

Nice name change, Hanna.

Don't listen to what everyone else has to say. Calling yourself 'Lone Wolf' doesn't make you look like a desperate, attention seeking martyr.

You're definitely the most independent person that I've met that desperately tries to attach himself to other people and institutions.

Ah Ballboy, your clear obsession is flattering. Stick to debating the topics and I'll stick to calling myself whatever takes my fancy at the time.

My opinions are plain for all to see yet I'm waiting for someone, anyone to land a jab. Take a swing, kid. Who knows, you may get lucky and land a glancing blow. But I wouldn't count on it.

[Guest Lone Wolf]

Worry about whats best for yourself then .

There are some crap straight parents out there-

at least a gay home would be clean ( and tastefully decorated).

I'd be more worried about children left with members of a church-what an appalling record they already have .

"Worry about whats best for yourself then."

I'm concerned abou a child's best interests, not single mums or gays. A Mother and Father is the optimum scenario and every child deserves that chance.

"There are some crap straight parents out there"

So ? There are no guarantees children will get great parents. Many don't.

"I'd be more worried about children left with members of a church-what an appalling record they already have"

I don't think you're worried about children at all. You're only interested in the rights of people that want them.

And what examples of members of a church do you refer ?

[H_T 3,049]

Worry about whats best for yourself then .

There are some crap straight parents out there-

at least a gay home would be clean ( and tastefully decorated).

What ? Are you alluding to heterosexual loving parents wouldn't have clean homes or have their homes tastefully decorated ?

That's discriminatory !

PS. The "crap straight parents" argument doesn't wash. Been covered.

[mauriesy 7,299]

I don't think you're worried about children at all. You're only interested in the rights of people that want them.

Prospective humans that are not even conceived have no "rights" either. It's a logical absurdity.

The Commonwealth at least determines who gets married (the subject of this thread). But there are no controls over who can procreate, unless you're proposing that we introduce them?

[Guest Lone Wolf]

Prospective humans that are not even conceived have no "rights" either. It's a logical absurdity.

The Commonwealth at least determines who gets married (the subject of this thread). But there are no controls over who can procreate, unless you're proposing that we introduce them?

"The Commonwealth at least determines who gets married (the subject of this thread). But there are no controls over who can procreate, unless you're proposing that we introduce them?"

I'm talking about adoption and IVF. I wouldn't allow IVF, or adoption rights to single people, or homosexual couples. Clearly I disagree with the present laws that allow such circumstances.

[mauriesy 7,299]

I'm talking about adoption and IVF. I wouldn't allow IVF, or adoption rights to single people, or homosexual couples. Clearly I disagree with the present laws that allow such circumstances.

Sorry, the thread seems have gone up alley ways and I've lost track.

Some good friends of mine are gays who paid a surrogate mother to carry their child. They must be bottom of your pile. Would you tell them face-to-face they are not 'suitable' to be parents?

[Guest Lone Wolf]

Sorry, the thread seems have gone up alley ways and I've lost track.

Some good friends of mine are gays who paid a surrogate mother to carry their child. They must be bottom of your pile. Would you tell them face-to-face they are not 'suitable' to be parents?

"Sorry, the thread seems have gone up alley ways and I've lost track."

Conversation evolves, but I'll try and keep it simple for you.

"Some good friends of mine are gays who paid a surrogate mother to carry their child. They must be bottom of your pile."

Bottom of my pile ? Didn't even think of the scenario. But I certainly wouldn't allow it. It's a pity I'm not in charge.

"Would you tell them face-to-face they are not 'suitable' to be parents?"

If they asked my opinion of course I'd oblige. I wouldn't ram my views down their throat, but if the subject was broached I certainly wouldn't shy away from giving an honest answer. It would be disrespectful not to answer their question candidly. Do you think I'm only candid on the internet ? How shallow.

I would say to them that despite all the love in the world and all of their well-meaning intentions that I don't believe that the make-up of their family unit is best suited for parenting. I would say that I believe that children are best served by a Mother and a Father. And who wouldn't want what's best for children ?

Clearly you don't think that a child is in any way compromised if it has gay parents. What if you're wrong ? What if studies subsequently conclude that you're wrong ? Would you care anyway ?

[mauriesy 7,299]

What if studies subsequently conclude that you're wrong?

Show me a rigorous, peer-reviewed study that shows every gay person can't provide a good environment for bringing up kids and I might change my mind.

Meanwhile, no matter what the family unit kids end up in, whether by happenstance or circumstance ... heterosexual, gay, single parent, divorced, grandparent, rich, poor etc. ... I'm sure that there will be a continuum of ability in each broad unit, with excellent parents at one end and really atrocious parents at the other (plus a healthy bell curve in the middle).

You seem to be saying that the excellent end of one of these family units (gay) has no right to children, even though they may be a long way further up the continuum from the atrocious end of another (heterosexuals) that does have such a 'right'.

So you are classifiying them purely by their gender or sexuality, not by their parenting skills, love or the ability to provide for their children. If I was to transpose 'black' and 'white' for 'gay' and 'heterosexual', I'd hope you'd see how socially dangerous and prejudiced that is.

PS. Have we gone up another alley away from IVF and adoption back to basic parenting again?

Edited August 19, 2011 by maurie

[Guest Lone Wolf]

Show me a rigorous, peer-reviewed study that shows every gay person can't provide a good environment for bringing up kids and I might change my mind.

You may find the following interesting. It goes a long way to explaining the problems with quality research, as well as identifying genuine issues with gay parenting.

http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles/DaileyGayAdopt.php