Gay Marriage

[Julia]

Come on Julia, you knew what I meant.

No, I did not. You stated that we have laws that protect children.
I know this not to be so.
I still don't understand what you mean if you genuinely think there are valid protections in our society for abused children.
Just last week a child was found dead. She had been tortured and abused over a long period of time. What protection did she have?

You absolutely cannot blithely dismiss the horrendous abuse of children with an airy assertion that we have laws to prevent this.

Please explain just how the little girl in the example above could have protected herself against ongoing torture and eventual death.

Or the children of both sexes who are sexually abused by deviant adults. What recourse has a little kid got?

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

You may not agree with Whiskers. I don't either in some of what he says. But he's at least trying to take the subject seriously instead of just assuming all will be just okey dokey if we rewrite the Marriage Act. You, on the other hand, appear totally unwilling to even think about some of the possible ramifications.

 

[Tink]

Good point Julia

I actually think it has got worse through the years, once upon a time people would involve themselves with what was happening in the neighbourhood, today, people dont involve themselves at all, turn a blind eye with -- none of my business or its got nothing to do with me or I dont want to be involved.

Just like this debate

 

[Logique]

From the Greens 'marriage equality spokesperson' Senator Sarah Hanson-Young - Saturday 3rd December 2011

http://sarah-hanson-young.greensmps...lease/greens-seize-momentum-marriage-equality
"Marriage equality and fairness for all is about love and should be above politics," the Greens' marriage equality spokesperson said.
"With support from members from all sides, I believe these bills can pass in time for the spring wedding season."
"Cupid doesn't discriminate and neither should the law."

It's all about love, apparently, and should be above politics. Important that it passes in time for the Spring wedding season.

 

[nomore4s]

No, I did not. You stated that we have laws that protect children.
I know this not to be so.
I still don't understand what you mean if you genuinely think there are valid protections in our society for abused children.
Just last week a child was found dead. She had been tortured and abused over a long period of time. What protection did she have?

You absolutely cannot blithely dismiss the horrendous abuse of children with an airy assertion that we have laws to prevent this.

Please explain just how the little girl in the example above could have protected herself against ongoing torture and eventual death.

Or the children of both sexes who are sexually abused by deviant adults. What recourse has a little kid got?

Julia, there are laws designed to offer protection to children from this abuse. Does that stop children from being abused? No of course it doesn't because there are sick individuals around that will do the wrong thing no matter what protections are in place. If you want to start a debate about child abuse that is fine and I'll agree with you that the laws don't stop children from being abused or that the penalties are not heavy enough but that is not what we are talking about.
What do you suggest is done? And how exactly does this relate to not letting same-sex couples get married?

You have taken my original statement and like Whiskers taken it off on a totally different tangent

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

My original statement above was in response to Whiskers about there being no laws protecting children from abuse in gay marriages but you have somehow taken that to mean that I don't care about abused children and I think the laws are enough to protect them. The bold text is actually the point I was trying to make.

You may not agree with Whiskers. I don't either in some of what he says. But he's at least trying to take the subject seriously instead of just assuming all will be just okey dokey if we rewrite the Marriage Act. You, on the other hand, appear totally unwilling to even think about some of the possible ramifications.

What possible ramifications Julia?
The same ramifications we have now when we let hetro-sexual couples get married?
These relationships with or without children already exist in our society and I really fail to see what possible difference is going to be made by granting them the legal right to get married. I'm yet to see one decent, valid argument from anyone on this thread to why same-sex couples shouldn't be allowed to get married.

Some of the views in this thread make it seem like same-sex couples especially gay male couples are a danger to our children and are a blight on our community and I'm sorry but I don't agree with those views.

Whiskers keeps banging on about children being affected and there not being enough laws to protect children in same sex marriages and my argument has been that same-sex couple can already adopt and/or raise children in various states so there must already be laws applying to these situations.
I have also tried to make the point same-sex couples can not have children as easily has hetro couples and I fail to see how allowing them to get married makes it any easier for them to adopt etc etc under the current laws. But these points have tended to be overlooked in favour of the abuse of children which to me is taking the debate away from the topic gay marriage especially since all the research suggests most child abuse is done by white hetro males.

 

[Whiskers]

Whiskers keeps banging on about children being affected and there not being enough laws to protect children in same sex marriages and my argument has been that same-sex couple can already adopt and/or raise children in various states so there must already be laws applying to these situations.

A dangerous and often wrong assumption!

I have also tried to make the point same-sex couples can not have children as
easily has hetro couples and I fail to see how allowing them to get married
makes it any easier for them to adopt etc etc under the current laws.

Children can come into a (new) gay marriage by other than adoption as the example (from post 191) and a number of permeations of it, and my questions highlight.

[Example from post 191]
For example a Gay male may have a child via a surrogate mother (or a heterosual partner before going gay), and that male seems to be legally considered the father sooner or later. When that gay (or heterosexual) 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 heterosexual marriage until the child reaches the legal age of adult?

​

I have spelled out that changes to the gay (male) marriage act directly affects assets and property distribution in the event of the gay relationship going bad. That entails Family law and child support laws.

The point you still don't get is that a child can be brought into a gay relationship as per my above example.

But the main point you still don't get is that the Child Protection Act (Qld, that I refer to) seems silent on gay male 'parents' because it has not been possible legally for two males to be married and called parents of a child or other similar terms that hold them legally accountable for the welfare of the child, equivalent to heterosexual parents and blood relatives.

If the child is legally adopted the adoption laws automatically bind the parents to the child protection laws... but the example I refer to has no similar binding protection for the child by virtue of the proposed gay marriage act changes.

 

[Julia]

From the Greens 'marriage equality spokesperson' Senator Sarah Hanson-Young - Saturday 3rd December 2011
It's all about love, apparently, and should be above politics. Important that it passes in time for the Spring wedding season.

Cupid?
Spring weddings?
Dear God!

Julia, there are laws designed to offer protection to children from this abuse. Does that stop children from being abused? No of course it doesn't because there are sick individuals around that will do the wrong thing no matter what protections are in place. If you want to start a debate about child abuse that is fine and I'll agree with you that the laws don't stop children from being abused or that the penalties are not heavy enough but that is not what we are talking about.
What do you suggest is done? And how exactly does this relate to not letting same-sex couples get married?

It doesn't. I just couldn't let your statement that we have laws in place to protect children go unchallenged. It wasn't my intention to turn this into a thread about abused children.

You have taken my original statement and like Whiskers taken it off on a totally different tangent

Have I? I think I just gave an example of how the law does not actually protect children. If you'd not raised the suggestion that our laws ensured the safety of children, I wouldn't have commented. Again, I have no wish to derail the thread.

My original statement above was in response to Whiskers about there being no laws protecting children from abuse in gay marriages but you have somehow taken that to mean that I don't care about abused children

No, I wouldn't think for a moment that you don't care about abused children and have not at all suggested that.
I'm not taking any stand re Whiskers' concerns about children in gay marriages.
I've never known any homosexuals with children so I can't comment.

Have, however, seen plenty of abused children in heterosexual relationships and with single parents. I don't think it's either the sexual orientation of the 'parents' concerned, or their status (ie married, de facto, single) that matters as much as the individual capacity of any human being to understand how to properly raise a child.

But at the same time, I have some reservations about children growing up with the assumption that having homosexual 'parents' is the norm.
If asked to clarify these reservations, I honestly can't. It's perhaps just my innate conservatism in a social sense.

What possible ramifications Julia?

Again, I honestly don't know. Homosexual people with children haven't been part of our society for long enough for much assessment to be made about the success or otherwise of such a family structure.

I just get a bit alarmed when I hear advocates of gay marriage say that 'it's all about love' and 'if people love each other' then they should be able to get married.
I don't want to invoke the slippery slope cliche, but if that's all that matters, should the Marriage Act also be altered to include those who find love in group sexual relationships? Just one example.

I've said before that I couldn't care less what adults do in their private lives. I have no sense that any sexual activity that's acceptable to both adult parties or multiple parties is out of bounds. Just stay away from little children and animals.

Perhaps I'm just a bit off how the sexual orientation of some people has to be thrust in our faces these days. I really don't want to stand in a queue at the supermarket and see the lesbian couple in front of me all but masturbating each other.
Heterosexual people don't do this (at least I've never seen it) but some gay people seem to feel obliged to be publicly demonstrative presumably as a way of making their point about being "out".

Just seems unnecessary and a bit offensive to me.

The same ramifications we have now when we let hetro-sexual couples get married?
These relationships with or without children already exist in our society and I really fail to see what possible difference is going to be made by granting them the legal right to get married. I'm yet to see one decent, valid argument from anyone on this thread to why same-sex couples shouldn't be allowed to get married.

That's a perfectly fair comment. As above, I can't coherently say to you exactly why homosexual marriage seems not OK to me. I also can't really understand why there's so much attraction to being married. It's not as if the institution of marriage has a great track record!

Some of the views in this thread make it seem like same-sex couples especially gay male couples are a danger to our children and are a blight on our community and I'm sorry but I don't agree with those views.

I don't either. As above I don't think sexual orientation is the arbiter of abuse of children.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

From the Greens 'marriage equality spokesperson' Senator Sarah Hanson-Young - Saturday 3rd December 2011

http://sarah-hanson-young.greensmps....riage-equality
"Marriage equality and fairness for all is about love and should be above politics," the Greens' marriage equality spokesperson said.
"With support from members from all sides, I believe these bills can pass in time for the spring wedding season."
"Cupid doesn't discriminate and neither should the law."

It's all about love, apparently, and should be above politics. Important that it passes in time for the Spring wedding season.

Ah, dear ole Sarah.

As Menzies would have said.

I did but see her **** pass me by.

A not so `S.H.Y’ Sarah Hanson-Young touched off a `cheeky’ exchange with a `crack’ at Nationals senator, John “Wacka” Williams.

The latter had complained by point of order that Greens’ leader Bob Brown routinely failed to “bow” to the Senate President when coming and going from the chamber.

He directed a jibe at the South Australian as he sat down telling her, “you’re just as bad as Bob”.

“I don’t bow because I don’t want you looking at my ****,” retorted Senator SHY allegedly to the gravelly New South Welshman.

“I don’t want to look at your ****,” responded “Wacka” who later admitted to being “gobsmacked”.

“Mr President, I ask Senator Williams to withdraw that offensive statement,” intervened a suddenly indignant Bob Brown before noting that Barnaby Joyce had traversed the chamber without the requisite “bowing and scraping”.

It was edifying stuff proving once again that politics is generally more **** than science.

http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/arsegate-and-other-upper-house-shenanigans/

gg

 

[awg]

Ultimately, I support gay marriage.

When you have children of your own, you ask yourself what you would do if they presented themselves in that situation, and sometimes you have to be prepared to give some ground to prejudices from an earlier time.

nonetheless, I cant help but thinking of an SBS doco, I have seen a couple of times
( friday at 9.30 is sex night on SBS)...where dudes REALLY love their sex dolls.

Their rationalisations were fascinating...talking of slippery slopes..Piers Ackermans had some rather sick observations

 

[nomore4s]

Julia,

Thanks for your honest reply and I understand your views and some of the reservations you have.

Whiskers,

A parent is a parent no matter what sex, race or sexual orientation.
A step parent is a step parent no matter what sex, race or sexual orientation.
They all have legal & moral obligations and responsibilities towards the children in their care. So why does the law need to differentiate based on the sexual preference of the offender?

[Example from post 191]
For example a Gay male may have a child via a surrogate mother (or a heterosual partner before going gay), and that male seems to be legally considered the father sooner or later. When that gay (or heterosexual) 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 heterosexual marriage until the child reaches the legal age of adult?

Why would there need to be a difference between a male step father in a traditional heterosexual marriage and a male step father in a same-sex marriage? Aren't they both considered step parents with all the same legal and moral obligations to the child? I really fail to see how your above example is any different when it is a male step father in a traditional marriage or a male step father in a same-sex marriage.

All of your objections so far have been happening for generations in traditional heterosexual marriages and family units but apparently same-sex couples shouldn't be allowed the same rights to get married because of these same issues.

I'm not saying that same-sex marriages won't have their problems or issues but the fact is heterosexual marriages have been having the same problems or issues for a very long time.
Don't you find it somewhat unfair that we continue to deny same-sex couples the right to get married if they choose too, but have no objection to traditional marriages when exactly the same problems exist for both unions?

 

[bellenuit]

But at the same time, I have some reservations about children growing up with the assumption that having homosexual 'parents' is the norm.
If asked to clarify these reservations, I honestly can't. It's perhaps just my innate conservatism in a social sense.

Julia. I agree on that point. I have reservations too. It seems in all other cases protection of the child is uppermost. For example, fathers are often denied any contact with their child when there is a suggestion of interference with the child, even though there is often no proof or the allegation is based on statements by the child that may have been encouraged by an aggrieved spouse or social worker. Society deems protection of the child in these cases is more important than any rights of the father. Whilst I don't necessarily say that is wrong, in the case of gay adopters, we seem to be putting the rights of the gays ahead of the children. There simply isn't enough data available to assume that having same sex parents has no adverse consequences on the children. I am not talking about abuse, but simple the psychological effect on the child. It seems we are willing in this case to risk damaging the kids in order to protect the rights of same sex couples.

That being said I don't know how we can ever get such data without allowing the practice to take place. A bit of a Catch 22.

However, I do think that if same sex couples are allowed to adopt, that until the psychological consequences are known, hetrosexual couples should have preference over same sex couples ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL.

 

[Tink]

Well here is hoping that Abbott stands his ground.

Marraige is man, woman, child -- and should stay that way for all future generations.

 

[Macquack]

I agree 100% with nomore4s position on this issue.

Whiskers keeps bleating on about the risks of gay marriage, when all the negative scenarios he refers to already exist.

Short of rounding up all gays and shooting them, Whiskers should move with the times.

 

[Whiskers]

Whiskers keeps bleating on about the risks of gay marriage, when all the negative scenarios he refers to already exist.

Do they!?

Read on.

I really fail to see how your above example is any different when it is a male step father in a traditional marriage or a male step father in a same-sex marriage.

It really would be helpful if you read the legislation rather than presume all has or will be ok.

The proposed gay marriage act basically entails a redefining of the "Spouse" in the marriage. Currently; s5(1)marriage means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered intofor life. http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2010C00189

The recent failed proposal involved;

s2.4 ...amending the definition of 'marriage', contained in subsection 5(1) of the Act, so as to read 'the union of two people, regardless of sex, sexuality orgender identity, voluntarily entered into.' The Bill also makes consequential amendments to remove references to 'a man and a woman'. http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/legcon_ctte/marriage_equality/report/report.pdf
​

This is the senate committee report summary. I cannot put my hand on the gay marriage ammendment bill that I was referring to previously, that was a very short bill that specificallly entailed the above... redefining of spouse... not parent.

Whiskers,

A parent is a parent no matter what sex, race or sexual orientation.
A step parent is a step parent no matter what sex, race or sexual orientation.
They all have legal & moral obligations and responsibilities towards the
children in their care. So why does the law need to differentiate based on the sexual preference of the offender?

That's true to a point. But to assume the moral obligation = a statutory legal one is folley, because a Spouse/partner under the marriage act proposals I've seen does not to equate to a parent for the purpose of the child protection act. The Qld Child Protect Act says;


s11 Who is a parent

1. A parent of a child is the child's mother or someone else having or exercising parental responsibility for the child.
2. However, a person standing in the place of a parent of a child on a tempory basis is not a parent of the child.

As mention earlier, the Qld Child Protection Act iseems silent on gay male parents. There is some reference to step parents in which I suggest (maybe too generously) may catch gay male parents, up to the child becoming of age 16, ie where sexual relations is no longer 'carnal knowledge', but in a hetrosexual marriage and child protection law, sexual abuse includes to a sibling or child of the parent full stop.
The age of consent and what constitutes carnal knowledge varies across state laws. In Qld the age of consent for carnal knowledge is 16yo. Apparently Qld is the only state that has an exception for sodomy laws, it's 18yo. But obviously child abuse does not need to involve sodomy. http://www.aifs.gov.au/nch/pubs/sheets/rs16/rs16.html

Presumption and the law: You may be familiar with a very recent law change (I think it was in Vic) where it was illegal to have more than .05 blood alcohol while driving... and was assumed, but was not illegal to drive while drinking alcohol even though you may not necessarily be over the .05 limit. The law was hastily amended.

This is the sort of legal loophole than people often leave open in their haste or blase attitude to law changes and the implications of that change.

I emphasise, changing the definition of 'spouse' will enter a new dynamic into 'parental' relationships with a child, but the proposed spouse doesn't necessairly equate to 'parent' in terms of child welfare laws.

 

[Eager]

From the Gillard thread, this is a portion of what Julia posted from what she heard on the radio (although I suspect the content looks like a junk email going around):

If a conservative is homosexual, he quietly leads his life. If a left winger is homosexual, he demands legislated respect.


Legislated respect. Ha! Gillard will allow a conscience vote on the issue of gay marriage, as she should. If the vote doesn't get up, then bad luck, move on.

By comparison it is now apparent that Abbott will direct his mob to tow the party (his) line.

Tell me, who is being the most demanding there?

 

[Calliope]

Tell me, who is being the most demanding there?

Bob Brown and Doug Cameron?

 

[burglar]

(tongue-in-cheek)
I say, let them have same sex marriage!!

Then they can have infidelity, mistrust, divorce, property settlement, custody battles, etc.

Why should we be the only ones having fun?!
lol

 

[Calliope]

(tongue-in-cheek)
I say, let them have same sex marriage!!

Then they can have infidelity, mistrust, divorce, property settlement, custody battles, etc.

Why should we be the only ones having fun?!
lol

And when they have a knock-down-drag-out fight they will be more evenly matched. There used to be two bull-dykes living down the street from me and they frequently battled for supremacy, no holds barred.

 

[fatmango]

Marriage between two people, regardless of sex discriminates against those relationships of a greater number than two. If we are going to change the Marriage Act, let's go all the way and include polyamorous relationships.

As for children.....as a schoolteacher of 31 years (and counting unless the stockmarket picks up rapidly) it is amazing how many disengaged students I have come across who are from families who are split up and the father is hardly involved, if at all. As for children of same sex couples I have only come across one - a complete mess. But one is obviously not enough to make any conclusions. Hopefully I will meet some who are well-balanced.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

Marriage between two people, regardless of sex discriminates against those relationships of a greater number than two. If we are going to change the Marriage Act, let's go all the way and include polyamorous relationships.

As for children.....as a schoolteacher of 31 years (and counting unless the stockmarket picks up rapidly) it is amazing how many disengaged students I have come across who are from families who are split up and the father is hardly involved, if at all. As for children of same sex couples I have only come across one - a complete mess. But one is obviously not enough to make any conclusions. Hopefully I will meet some who are well-balanced.

It is good to have a schoolteachers view on this difficult topic.

What you are saying is that in your experience there is no net benefit for children in this legislation and that the existing social dysfunction of absent fathers is prejudicial to a child's well-being.

gg

 

[Logique]

Well here is hoping that Abbott stands his ground.
Marraige is man, woman, child -- and should stay that way for all future generations.

Must agree Tink. I'm happy for gays and lesbians to arrange their lives anyway they choose. I don't judge them, they'll get no discrimination here. Their current civil unions are fine by me.

But gays and lesbians, don't touch the Marriage Act, that goes to our core values as a nation.