Gay Marriage

[Garpal Gumnut]

I honestly don't know, gav. I've never known a homosexual couple who have brought up children so I'm not in a position to comment.

What I'm conscious of is the way children are discriminated against in school and generally as they're growing up if they're 'different'. But perhaps being in a family where both your mother and your father are female or both male is no longer unusual and the kid will not be bullied and laughed at as a result. I simply don't know.

I couldn't give a stuff one way or the other re homosexuals being married, but I can see that the ramifications (e.g. churches suddenly obliged to marry people of the same sex totally against all they believe in) might be far reaching and cause much angst to those who feel strongly that marriage is between a male and female.

My main point in all this is that imo it's a totally minor issue and I'm immensely irritated that the Labor Party - in the face of global financial chaos and so much that needs to be fixed like border protection - is so utterly focused on this issue.
I find such a focus to be a gross dereliction of their duty to the country.

A good summary Julia.

Agree.

gg

 

[Sean K]

Seems to be a consistent thread of thought here that we just need to have an officially governmentally sanctioned union between same gender people that is of equal social and legal significance to that of the religious folk and we'd all be happy. The issue is choosing a word other than 'marriage' to identify it.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

Seems to be a consistent thread of thought here that we just need to have an officially governmentally sanctioned union between same gender people that is of equal social and legal significance to that of the religious folk and we'd all be happy. The issue is choosing a word other than 'marriage' to identify it.

Union.

gg

 

[Wysiwyg]

Why is a minority group getting government attention to the extent of changing the normal family unit acceptance of male and female marriage? Has Bob docked the odd stink pipe?

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

I have some mates who are gay, and there is no way they wanted this sort of politically correct claptrap.

gg

 

[Whiskers]

Well you completely misconstrued what I said, how exactly did I imply that euthanasia is more important than children's rights?

Maybe it was the way you phrased it!

There is nothing to debate, this has no negative effect on anyone but bigots so just give them their gay marriage already so we can move onto more compelling social issues such as euthanasia. This is further evidence that church and state are anything but separated in Australia, keep your religious ideology's out of politics.

Whiskers this is absolute nonsense, it's a bit of misdirection to try and change the issue from marriage equality to children's rights. There are legal issues regarding adoption and children from previous relationships, but this is true for all unmarried couples so why single out same sex couples?

Gay couples can already adopt children in several states so I don’t see how marriage will exacerbate children’s rights. By your logic all single parents, widows, unmarried couples should have their children removed from their care. Children with married parents have no additional rights that unmarried couples children obtain. The "children" issue is a simple smokescreen to draw attention away from the fact that there is no solid argument against gay marriage.

By definition marriage implies the right to have and raise children.

Don't children have the basic human right to their biological mother and father in the first instance?

...so why not let them have their bit of paper it's not going to hurt or affect anyone else, so why worry about it.

I presume you meant if it's not going to hurt or affect anyone else.


Here's a few questions for you all?

1. Given the push for gay marriage relies heavily on their use of "equality" and their perceived "fundamental human Right"... what about 'equality' for the child coming into their relationship without the particular comfort and developmental support to learn the sociological skills to grow up and reproduce a 'naturally' sustaining family by their (the child's) fundamental human right?

2. Is the new marriage act going to limit children to gay marriage to be adopted, ie not allowing surrogate children for gays? Gays can't even adopt in all states.

3. While the law and a court can deem a child, a child of the marriage or the custody of a person for legal purposes, what are you going to raise the children to call the gay parents... mother and father!? Think about their, the gay's profound use of equality and fundamental human rights in their arguably self centered preoccupation, but in the context of the child's rights and future welfare.

4. This one may be a bit below the belt... but what will the position be regarding incest/sodomy where the child is no (especially) blood relation? Is there law changes to ensure that any child brought into the relationship from non blood relations (esp illegal surrogacy) is to be legally treated and protected as a child of the marriage.

I did have another significant question... but lost it atm. it'll come to me later.

But, maybe this whole 'liberalism' of relationships and everything else in some quarters is meant to be and natures way of population control.

 

[Calliope]

I did have another significant question... but lost it atm. it'll come to me later.

I have one. Will gay "parents" be allowed to take their "children" along with them to cavort in the Mardi Gras?

 

[nomore4s]

By definition marriage implies the right to have and raise children.

Since when did you have to be married to have the "right" to have and raise children?

A lot of the arguments being put forward against gay marriage seem to be based around children being raised in these marriages. To me that is a totally separate issue especially as gay couples already have the ability and "right" to raise children. So don't all the issues being raised in regards to gay couples raising children apply now to gay couples that have children?

Being married isn't going to automatically allow gay couples to adopt just as not all hetro couples meet the requirements for adoption.

Point 4 is surely starting to clutch at straws, doesn't the same question apply to adopted, foster or step children of any marriage? It's called child abuse!

 

[gav]

My main point in all this is that imo it's a totally minor issue and I'm immensely irritated that the Labor Party - in the face of global financial chaos and so much that needs to be fixed like border protection - is so utterly focused on this issue.
I find such a focus to be a gross dereliction of their duty to the country.

I totally agree - hence my earlier comment about the great "timing" of this announcement, takes a bit of heat off the pollie pay rise issue (as well as many other issues)...

 

[Wysiwyg]

Transvestites can go either way in this debate.

 

[Whiskers]

Since when did you have to be married to have the "right" to have and raise children?

A lot of the arguments being put forward against gay marriage seem to be based around children being raised in these marriages. To me that is a totally separate issue especially as gay couples already have the ability and "right" to raise children. So don't all the issues being raised in regards to gay couples raising children apply now to gay couples that have children?

Being married isn't going to automatically allow gay couples to adopt just as not all hetro couples meet the requirements for adoption.

But 'Marriage' in the traditional sense, that gays want to be recognised as equal to, has no limitations whatsoever on the hetrosexual couple bearing and/or raising children.

Sure some gays can adopt legally in some states, but not Australia wide.

But since they want to be given 'equal' marriage rights to hetrosexuals, the right to have children is intrinsic in that marriage. You miss my point... I haven't seen any mention of children in the proposed marriage law change I saw. Since the right to have children is intrinsic in marriage, how are they proposing to adjust the law to ensure non blood related children brought into the gay male marriage are given the same rights and protection as blood/family members are at present.

For example a Gay male may have a child via a surrogate mother, and that male seems to be legally considered the father sooner or later. When that gay relationship breaks down and he gets married to another male, his child seems to likely to be considered a step child of the new male partner, but if the new male partner has sex with the step child after 16 yo, is that still to be considered incest as in a hetrosexual marriage until the child reaches the legal age of adult?

Point 4 is surely starting to clutch at straws, doesn't the same question apply
to adopted, foster or step children of any marriage? It's called child abuse!

Adopted, foster and step children are well covered under the current law. My point is, to turn my previous question around a bit, what are the chidren brought into a gay male 'Marriage' going to be called legally, children of the marriage, adopted, step children or something else and where is the proposed changes in child status laws???

As far as I know the law recognises the paternal mother, even in lesbian partnership and the lesbian partner as a 'parent', with the child protection laws giving the same protection, but where is the law or proposed law changes to child protection laws to consider the child of two male partners?

I'd like to see some detailed law ammendments, (specifically relating to children) more than the few paragaph bill proposed by the greens that completely focused on substituting/including the words gay with parent in the marriage act.

Wouldn't a child in a gay male marriage be more inclined, if not indoctrinated, to believe that same sex, sex is normal and be at least vulnerable to abuse, especially if there are no specific laws for the safety of the child.

I just want to be sure all bases are covered before I go willy nilly giving them a marriage certificate.

 

[nulla nulla]

My son says "let the Gays get married, they have the right to be miserable like everyone else".

 

[nomore4s]

But 'Marriage' in the traditional sense, that gays want to be recognised as equal to, has no limitations whatsoever on the hetrosexual couple bearing and/or raising children.

But there is a limitation on gay couples having children isn't there? Gay couples can't have children in the traditional sense because it isn't possible. So your whole argument is null and void and I really see no need to change any other laws.

If they can already adopt children in certain states surely adoption laws already cover a lot of the points you raise.

And like I said before letting gay couples get married is a totally different issue to gay couples having and raising children.

Sure some gays can adopt legally in some states, but not Australia wide.

And being able to get married isn't going to change that. They will still have to jump through all the same hoops as they do now.

Wouldn't a child in a gay male marriage be more inclined, if not indoctrinated, to believe that same sex, sex is normal and be at least vulnerable to abuse, especially if there are no specific laws for the safety of the child.

Maybe the true issues you have with gay marriage are buried within this paragraph. So are you saying gay couples are more likely to abuse children, purely because of their sexual preferences? Or maybe because of the parents sexual preferences the child would be more likely to accept abuse as a normal part of life? And does this apply to lesbian couples or just gay male couples?

I would have thought every child is vulnerable to abuse, no matter who is raising them, aren't most abused children abused by a family member?
And I'm pretty sure there are laws that protect children from abuse no matter who brings them up or what environment they are brought up in.

If you want to go down the whole protecting children path, there are plenty of arguments to restrict the ability to have children in plenty of "traditional marriages".

 

[Whiskers]

I'll try to highlight that what I'm concerned about is this government's ability to make sound practical and legal decisions to implement most things it touches from pink bats to school halls and offshore processing of asylum seekers.

But there is a limitation on gay couples having children isn't there? Gay couples can't have children in the traditional sense because it isn't possible. So your whole argument is null and void and I really see no need to change any other laws.

If you go back to the example I mentioned, it specifically dealt with a (blood) child from one gay male brought into a (proposed) gay marriage. That example related to a surrogate mother for the child, but equally there are plenty of hetrosexual adults with children turning gay later in life.

I've perused a few child protection, family and marriage laws, including proposed changes to the marriage act, but as mentioned this is one hole I see in the proposed law change that makes children vulnerable. Show me the proposed law changes needed to ensure this child gets the same protection as a conventional hetrosexual marriage.

If they can already adopt children in certain states surely adoption laws
already cover a lot of the points you raise.

I've read a few laws and no they don't.

And like I said before letting gay couples get married is a totally different
issue to gay couples having and raising children.

On the contrary! Refer to my point above.

Maybe the true issues you have with gay marriage are buried within
this paragraph. So are you saying gay couples are more likely to abuse children,
purely because of their sexual preferences? Or maybe because of the parents
sexual preferences the child would be more likely to accept abuse as a normal
part of life?

That's the logical progression isn't it. Just as a child brought up in a violent relationship is more likely to posses violent behavioral tendencies and I child brought up in a strict religous relationship is more likely to be more religious... Gay rape etc does happen.

And does this apply to lesbian couples or just gay male couples?

Refer back to earlier post. I specifically spelled out how the current laws catch children of lesbian relationships.

 

[nomore4s]

I'll try to highlight that what I'm concerned about is this government's ability to make sound practical and legal decisions to implement most things it touches from pink bats to school halls and offshore processing of asylum seekers.

So if and when the liberals are in power you'll be quite happy for them to legalise gay marriage?

If you go back to the example I mentioned, it specifically dealt with a (blood) child from one gay male brought into a (proposed) gay marriage. That example related to a surrogate mother for the child, but equally there are plenty of hetrosexual adults with children turning gay later in life.

I've perused a few child protection, family and marriage laws, including proposed changes to the marriage act, but as mentioned this is one hole I see in the proposed law change that makes children vulnerable. Show me the proposed law changes needed to ensure this child gets the same protection as a conventional hetrosexual marriage.

Again, what are the current laws protecting children currently being raised by gay couples now that aren't married? And why wouldn't these current laws apply whether the gay couple is married or not? And why wouldn't the current laws that apply to hetro couples apply to gay couples?

If there are children being raised by gay couples now I really don't see how that gay couple being married or not has any effect on the laws and vulnerability of children in those relationships, surely the laws will be applied the same way whether the couple is married or not just the same way it is with hetro couples whether they are married or not.

That's the logical progression isn't it. Just as a child brought up in a violent relationship is more likely to posses violent behavioral tendencies and I child brought up in a strict religous relationship is more likely to be more religious... Gay rape etc does happen.

Wow, I think I'm going to have to leave the debate with you here as it is becoming increasingly obvious your views are somewhat homophobic and bigoted.

I have no doubt there would be cases of child abuse in gay families just as there are plenty of cases of abuse in hetro families but to suggest there would be more purely because they are gay amazes me and then to suggest the laws wouldn't protect these kids amazes me more.

Maybe you should read this - http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/35824.html

 

[Whiskers]

Transvestites can go either way in this debate.

Actually that not as silly as it may sound.

I have one. Will gay "parents" be allowed to take their "children" along with them to cavort in the Mardi Gras?

As many have mentioned, and I know myself, many gay and lesbian couples are happy to be pretty modest in their promoting of their relationship.

But as with all law changes it's the radical minority that stretch the boundaries and often break of the literal (statute) law not to mention the intent or at least public ally perceived intent of the law.

It's one thing to recognise gay relationships, but quite another to expect that the extreme element won't exploit any change in law to further their much freer sexuality and sexual relation ambitions.

Don't peadophiles actually practise gay and or bisexual behaviour!

Gay rape does happen like heterosexual rape.

How many gays have only ever been and devoutly pledge to only be homosexual.

How many (I knew a few) have practiced heterosexual and later converted to homosexual. Strictly they are bisexual. Conversely, I've heard of people growing up feeling/being gay and converted to heterosexuality.

transvestite : a person and especially a male who adopts the dress and often the behavior typical of the opposite sex especially for purposes of emotional or sexual gratification

For those with a rather blase attitude...

Isn't it all about sexual gratification!

I say, beware the children in any situation where sexual gratification is concerned.

And why wouldn't the current laws that apply to hetro couples apply to gay
couples?

I spelled out a specific situation where it doesn't with regard to the Qld Child Protection Act.

It's in the meaning in the definition of current laws and the apparent lack of ammendments in new legislation to extend the meaning of relative, child of the marriage and the like.

Don't beat around the bush by labelling me homophobic and bigoted.

I asked a simple question about the law regarding the welfare of children in the proposed new marriage act changes.

In an eye for an eye, I'll suggest you are taking a rather blase attitude to all this.

Surely there is some gay marriage activist who has the precise legal answer for me/us.

But as I say, this government is proven to be pretty bad at thinking through the detail and successfully implementing new laws and schemes.

Surely that is a warning sign!!!

 

[Whiskers]

Further to...

Wow, I think I'm going to have to leave the debate with you here as it is becoming increasingly obvious your views are somewhat homophobic and bigoted.

Before you go labelling me the villian in this debate...

What are the gay rights and proposed gay marriage law changes about?

Isn't it primiarly to give gay and lesbian couples the same protection against other gay and lesbian's in property and relationship breakups as hetrosexual couples do!

That is to protect themselves from other 'gay' villans when things go pear shaped.

So, when there is a growing concern by gays for the integrity of other gays, why should we not pay particular attention to children exploitation by the radical villan minority in any law changes by the probably majority of self centered (as in not wanting or even considering children) in their proposed law changes!

 

[Julia]

I would have thought every child is vulnerable to abuse, no matter who is raising them, aren't most abused children abused by a family member?

Yes.

And I'm pretty sure there are laws that protect children from abuse no matter who brings them up or what environment they are brought up in.

Laws that protect children from abuse? Maybe you could explain how this works for the 6 year old who is being abused by a family member who threatens the child with dire consequences if he/she does not co-operate or tells anyone.

The power imbalance between the abusing adult and the child is huge.
Further, a young child is totally susceptible to being assured by the paedophile that what he is doing is "right" because he loves the child so much.
Children in such a situation have no protection.

If you want to go down the whole protecting children path, there are plenty of arguments to restrict the ability to have children in plenty of "traditional marriages".

Agree.

Don't peadophiles actually practise gay and or bisexual behaviour!

Can you clarify what you're saying here? Do you mean that paedophilia occurs only amongst homosexuals and bisexuals?

How many gays have only ever been and devoutly pledge to only be homosexual.

How many (I knew a few) have practiced heterosexual and later converted to homosexual. Strictly they are bisexual. Conversely, I've heard of people growing up feeling/being gay and converted to heterosexuality.

I don't understand what this has to do with objecting to gay marriage.
Human beings can experience various points on a continuum of sexuality, including homosexuality, heterosexuality and everything in between. As far as I'm aware, there's no justification for taking a position that during a lifetime any person must remain within the bounds of a single sexual orientation.

Isn't it all about sexual gratification!

I say, beware the children in any situation where sexual gratification is concerned.

Again, I don't quite understand your point here. Sexual gratification is a driving force in most human beings. That doesn't make it some sort of perversion or necessarily result in sex of a deviant nature such as the abuse of small children.

 

[Whiskers]

Can you clarify what you're saying here? Do you mean that paedophilia occurs only amongst homosexuals and bisexuals?

No, just trying to highlight that with sexual liberation (whether legal or not) there is always a minority villan. It was an attempt to shock into reality, the rather blase image and attitude some appear to have regarding people whose sexual orientation changes, in the context of the proposed gay marriage law changes.

I don't understand what this has to do with objecting to gay marriage.
Human beings can experience various points on a continuum of sexuality,
including homosexuality, heterosexuality and everything in between. As far as
I'm aware, there's no justification for taking a position that during a lifetime
any person must remain within the bounds of a single sexual orientation.

I agree the sexual orientation of a person is a 'legal' free right.

The point I'm trying to emphasise is, how many people who go under the 'gay' label are actually historically bisexual, not historically true homosexual, but converted to 'gay'.

Again, I don't quite understand your point here. Sexual gratification is a
driving force in most human beings. That doesn't make it some sort of
perversion or necessarily result in sex of a deviant nature such as the abuse of
small children.

True, sexual gratification doesn't necessairly mean perversion or abuse of children.

I'm simply saying beware of the children in the minority, probably especially bisexual, ie where there sexual preferance changes in life, in any changes to the marriage act... and the particular gay male example earlier.

As far as I'm aware we only have peoples word for their sexual orientation in the first instance. If their sexual orientation is prone to change, it opens the door for condideration whether it may now involve children.

I'll see if I can abbreviate the main parts of the Qld child prottection act that seems to be silent on gay male parents and children of a gay male marriage/defacto relationship or deemed under the care of.

 

[nomore4s]

Laws that protect children from abuse? Maybe you could explain how this works for the 6 year old who is being abused by a family member who threatens the child with dire consequences if he/she does not co-operate or tells anyone.

The power imbalance between the abusing adult and the child is huge.
Further, a young child is totally susceptible to being assured by the paedophile that what he is doing is "right" because he loves the child so much.
Children in such a situation have no protection.

Come on Julia, you knew what I meant.

Maybe I should have put "designed to protect children" but as we all know laws do not stop bad people from doing bad things.

Whiskers, you're arguments are getting so far off the subject of gay marriage it's not worth debating it with you anymore.