- Joined
- 18 September 2008
- Posts
- 4,041
- Reactions
- 1,185
Core value of our nation? Logique, I doubt that even 1 in 10,000 people know what is in the marriage act or what it is about.
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.
Bellenuit, you mentioned in one of your posts about how you had reservations, how usually the children were put first in these scenarios, yet in this case, they are putting the rights of the adults before the children, I agree with that. Something I was trying to say in a post.
The Marraige Act is all about 'the family unit' - mother, father, child, agree or not, thats the way it is and should be.
There is a reason that they all should be included -- why would we want to discourage that?
Thats what I see as a core value and should stay that way for all future generations.
It has never made sense that gay parents complain of prejudice and exclusion and in the same breath propose their children are suffering no adverse consequences. In fact, in recent years the research allegedly supporting these rosy claims has come under scrutiny and found to be sorely lacking.
Penny Wong is now the proud "father" of baby Alexandra.
The grandson of a friend came home from school a few days ago with a cut lip.
Finally disclosed to his mother that he had been bashed for sticking up for a little girl who was being teased because she had 'two mummies'.
The defending five year old was jeered at for being a "poofter supporter".
His mother was glad her child tried to defend an innocent classmate but doesn't really want her son to be attacked.
And homosexuals demanding their rights say there are no ramifications of these 'rights"?
Nomore4s, it's not up to me to suggest what anyone should do about anything.
I simply related an anecdote. I've previously stated that I don't know any homosexual couples with children so I have nothing on which to base any opinion.
I do think it's tough on kids to be made fun of for whatever reason. Difficult enough growing up without that additional worry.
You're entitled to your opinion. I haven't tried to change it. Kindly accord me the same respect.
I don't know what the long term outcomes might be for children in 'different' situations. Let's wait and see.
Macquack, back a bit in this thread I think I said I found it difficult to coherently explain my reservations here. Also suggested it might just be my innate social conservatism.I rate Julia as one of the most objective posters on ASF. However, on this issue I find you being rather prejudical.
Probably a fair enough analogy. I just don't feel able to make an assessment that it all be just okey dokey when we have no longitudinal experience of the sort of family structures being discussed.Using your logic of "wait and see" is no better than reverting to the "White Australia" policy because children of "non-whites" might be victimised.
Sure. We'll all agree with that. However, having spent about ten years mentoring kids in schools, I'm less than enthusiastic about giving the little sods yet another reason to torture their fellow students.I agree with this statement from noremore4s
"Kids can be very cruel and will find nearly any excuse to bully kids that are different in any way."
Penny Wong is now the proud "father" of baby Alexandra.
And homosexuals demanding their rights say there are no ramifications of these 'rights"?
Julia,
I have no intention of trying to change your opinion. I like Macquack just found that post to be somewhat out of character for you.
Mainly this bit:
And homosexuals demanding their rights say there are no ramifications of these 'rights"?
If you think it's poorly worded then you're welcome to such a view. I do not think it's poorly worded. I stand by what I said. It accurately says what I wanted to say.Maybe it is just poorly worded and you are having trouble expressing your feelings on this matter, but to me at least that line just reads very badly.
I have already agreed about this. That argument has nothing to do with whether or not there will be hitherto unrealised ramifications of everything you are so in favour of.I haven't read any of it and I have no intention of reading any of it because my view is simple. There will be good and bad same-sex parents just as there is now with the traditional family structure. Children of both these family structures will range from one end of the scale to the other end, I don't need studies to tell me that.
I disagree. But nothing I say to this end will apparently allow you to consider a different view.Like I said before every argument I've heard used against same-sex marriage or same-sex couples having children can be used against traditional hetro couples as well.
THE Greens have accused church leaders of blatant scaremongering after congregations across Sydney were warned against same-sex marriage.
Top Anglican and Catholic clergy have penned statements to be read out or distributed at Sunday services, warning a change to the Marriage Act allowing gay or lesbian couples to wed would be inconsistent with religious teachings.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?