Gay Marriage

[DocK]

Consensus

The scientific research that has directly compared outcomes for children with gay and lesbian parents with outcomes for children with heterosexual parents has been generally consistent in showing that lesbian and gay parents are as fit and capable as heterosexual parents, and their children are as psychologically healthy and well-adjusted as children reared by heterosexual parents,[3][4][5] despite the reality that considerable legal discrimination and inequity remain significant challenges for these families.[4] Major associations of mental health professionals in the U.S., Canada, and Australia, have not identified credible empirical research that suggests otherwise.[5][6][7][8][9] Literature indicates that parents’ financial, psychological and physical well-being is enhanced by marriage and that children benefit from being raised by two parents within a legally-recognized union.[5][6][22][23]

Since the 1970s, it has become increasingly clear that it is family processes (such as the quality of parenting, the psychosocial well-being of parents, the quality of and satisfaction with relationships within the family, and the level of co-operation and harmony between parents) that contribute to determining children’s well-being and ‘outcomes’, rather than family structures, per se, such as the number, gender, sexuality and co-habitation status of parents.[4][22] Since the end of the 1980s, as a result, it has been well established that children and adolescents can adjust just as well in nontraditional settings as in traditional settings.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_parenting#Children.E2.80.99s_outcomes

I know the above is from Wikipedia, and no doubt those that have contrary views could find articles supporting their beliefs, but the above - especially the part I've bolded - sums up my views better than I could articulate myself.

If it is not right to deny a child the right to know its biological parents - should all adoptions be frowned upon, or only those made by same-sex couples?

There was a time when it was quite normal for daughters to marry whoever their fathers told them to, with little or no importance placed on their preference.

There was a time when it was generally accepted that only a man had the right to own property, and only men could earn money, hold jobs, be members of parliament etc.

There was a time when white people felt they had the right to sell other humans of a different colour as slaves.

There was a time when only men could vote, and many considered the very thought of this changing to be outrageous.

There was a time, not that long ago, that our own Australian aboriginal population were considered good enough to go to war for the country, but not good enough to vote or to be left to raise their own children.

There was a time when inter-racial relationships were considered to be scandalous.

There was a time when equal pay for women for the same job was extremely rare, and women had to resign upon marriage.

I firmly believe that one day our children and grandchildren will look back at this present debate and wonder "how could they think that was right", as I wonder how people in the past ever thought the above "norms" were right or acceptable.

Society evolves. Some wish to cling to the old ways, and they are just as entitled to their beliefs and opinions as anyone else, but in the end the beliefs of the majority will prevail - it's just a matter of time. Personally, I think it is wrong to deny a (growing) section of our community the same rights and privileges that fall to the rest of us.

 

[Logique]

Soon enough, we'll see gay marrieds, denied an adoption, off to equal opportunity and the courts - 'we're legally married' they'll say.

 

[DocK]

Soon enough, we'll see gay marrieds, denied an adoption, off to equal opportunity and the courts - 'we're legally married' they'll say.

How would that be any different to a hetero married couple who were denied an adoption doing the same thing? I assume those that screen for adoptions would apply the same filters to both couples, and both would have the right to challenge their decision if they disagreed?

 

[tinhat]

No, but it would be interesting to know why gay supporters of same sex "marriage" on this thread are averse to declaring their sexual orientation. Whatever happened to "gay pride"?

Whatever happened to minding your own business?

 

[Ves]

Of course this is about children. Anyone who says otherwise is so short sighted.

WHY DOES NO ONE GIVE A TOSS ABOUT A CHILD'S RIGHT TO A MOTHER AND FATHER. Shame on you all.

People should have to balls to stop spouting none sense about rights, whilst ignoring where this issue is heading and the rights if the innocent children that will be suppressed.

Can you share some research to the contrary of Dock's post or is this some more, in your own words, "propaganda"?

 

[pavilion103]

Many in this thread lack the foresight of the implications of adoption for gay couples.

Not even dealing with whether or not homosexuality is right or wrong.

From an evolutionary point of view nature has dictated that an ideal upbringing is that of a mother and father. Every child has sets of needs that can only be fulfilled by BOTH. This is obvious enough to not warrant further elaboration.
From a creationist point of view God created man and woman to form union as one and to reproduce within the institution of marriage.

People can say well gay people are also good people and straight people can be bad parents. Sure, of course, but this ignores the fact that a child has needs that only a mother AND father can truly fulfill. So who the heck has the right to deny a child this? It's not about whether a gay person is a "good person", it's about the ideal upbringing of a child.


Humans have not been created (or evolved) for this sort of arrangement. If gay couples and parenting is really the way it's meant to be why don't we wait until nature dictates this and men can become pregnant? Or women can get each other pregnant?
It seems so ironic that a gay couple needs both a MAN and a WOMAN to produce the baby in the first place.


None of this even addressed how dangerous the homosexual lifestyle actually is and that we are not created (or evolved) to live this way! Even if people have a genetic disposition towards being more 'gay' what does that matter? Someone can have a genetic disposition towards alcoholism, does that mean they should drink until their heart is content?
I find it amazing how we just 'accept' this as being ok because people want to do it, ignoring what we were created to do or how we evolved to live.
Then people get worked up about how the sexual preference towards being a pedophile has nothing to do with this. WHY? In what ways do YOU see it as different? Are both genetic? Are both environment? Both are a sexual preference for a type of person.

When the individual starts putting these things into different categories and willy nilly determines what is 'right' or 'wrong' we go down a very dangerous path. We have no accountability. Who cares what the majority thinks? When the majority thought racial segregation was ok did that make it ok? NO.
When we start separating this from the sexual pedophilic sexual preference for children and then other things we implement our own SUBJECTIVE morality.
This is what Hitler did when he did us all a 'favour' by weeding out the genetically weak, so that the rest of us could enjoy a super race.

I see a lot of talk of 'tolerance' and if people want to do it it's ok, but this is a soft, passive way of thinking which lacks conviction. Think about this a bit more deeply and whatever you choose to believe don't let it be "because people want to it's ok" or then you might as well put alcoholism and other things in the same category.

 

[pavilion103]

Can you share some research to the contrary of Dock's post or is this some more, in your own words, "propaganda"?

See my above post.

What more evidence do you want than the fact that we either:

1) evolved in this manner (i.e. nature determined that a man and woman would have children and that the child has specific needs that can only be met by both - this point is obvious to not warrant further explanation I'm sure you'd agree)

2) we were created in this manner (an all powerful and knowing creator decided this was best - well that ends the argument)


Who are we to try and change this because of our mere personal opinions?

Take either point 1) or 2) and something much bigger than us is trying to tell us something. How can we be so dumb as to not realise what this is?

 

[Ves]

See my above post.

What more evidence do you want than the fact that we either:

1) evolved in this manner (i.e. nature determined that a man and woman would have children and that the child has specific needs that can only be met by both - this point is obvious to not warrant further explanation I'm sure you'd agree)

2) we were created in this manner (an all powerful and knowing creator decided this was best - well that ends the argument)


Who are we to try and change this because of our mere personal opinions?

Take either point 1) or 2) and something much bigger than us is trying to tell us something. How can we be so dumb as to not realise what this is?

The universe / nature or whatever you want to call it isn't a moral system or one that is inclusive of only binary outcomes. It is a complex web of relationships between its different components. There is logic, some things work and some things do not. But there is nothing inherent in the system that says there is only one way.

Man has done many things that would seem not to be "natural" (ie. technology, building cities, having an economy) - but these are best seen as outcomes of mankind trying to make something out of the tools and components that the diverse system of life offers to him. Some things work best, some things not so good, and some fall somewhere in between. The outcomes of everything run along a continuum as life has no inherent meaning; there are grey areas.

Point 1) there is nothing in evolution that says that a man or woman need to be present after conception and birth - unless you can show me by using science that this is the a biological rule that a man and woman must be present when a child is being raised?

Point 2) we were created with the biological rule that you need a man and a woman to make a child - nothing after that point has a biological rule that governs it

I may be misunderstaing you, and you may need to clarify your argument, but it seems that you are saying that you have a mum or a dad, and nothing else can work. edit: you seem to be saying that this is the ideal scenario, and I would agree with that, but with the addendum that other ways can, and have empirically, worked. There is plenty of empirical evidence in society that would suggest that this argument is void.

 

[Calliope]

Whatever happened to minding your own business?

You mean like they do publicly in the Mardi Gras.

 

[Julia]

Point 1) there is nothing in evolution that says that a man or woman need to be present after conception and birth - unless you can show me by using science that this is the a biological rule that a man and woman must be present when a child is being raised?

Point 2) we were created with the biological rule that you need a man and a woman to make a child - nothing after that point has a biological rule that governs it

I may be misunderstaing you, and you may need to clarify your argument, but it seems that you are saying that you have a mum or a dad, and nothing else can work. edit: you seem to be saying that this is the ideal scenario, and I would agree with that, but with the addendum that other ways can, and have empirically, worked. There is plenty of empirical evidence in society that would suggest that this argument is void.

Good reasoning and well put, Ves. Pavilion, if you're going to be adamant that every child must have a male and female parent to develop well, how do you account for the many productive and caring people who are brought up by just a single mother, the father having no input?

 

[sydboy007]

See my above post.

What more evidence do you want than the fact that we either:

1) evolved in this manner (i.e. nature determined that a man and woman would have children and that the child has specific needs that can only be met by both - this point is obvious to not warrant further explanation I'm sure you'd agree)

2) we were created in this manner (an all powerful and knowing creator decided this was best - well that ends the argument)


Who are we to try and change this because of our mere personal opinions?

Take either point 1) or 2) and something much bigger than us is trying to tell us something. How can we be so dumb as to not realise what this is?

What a load of bigotry. To have the audacity to think that because you hold an idea so firmly that it must obviously be self evident, and so therefore requires no further discussion, is just the ultimate in narrow mindedness.

Go back in history and look at the styles of families. The modern day nuclear family is a construct of the post war era. Go back 100+ years and you will see it would have been fairly UNNATURAL to have children brought up with just a mother and father. Quite often there was the entire extended family living together, or you relied on friends to help with the caring of children. Quite often the father was away for extended periods. I look at my Gran and how she was sent away during WWI to live with her Grandmother. She's a well adjusted person, yet by your standards she didn't have a NATURL upbringing.

Go to poor countries and you will see that older children have a much greater input into the care of their younger siblings. It wouldn't surprise me if that is a superior way to raise children than the drop them off at child care of today.

I have friends who are a gay couple. They made the choice to have children by surrogacy at a very considerable cost. If you met the children out playing I doubt you'd even have the merest hint that they were being raised by a gay couple. They laugh and cry just as much as any other children. The oldest boy has a cheeky streak to him, while the younger ones are still in that shy phase till they get to know you.

This couple has made major changes in their lives to have the children. They invested considerable resources into designing their house so they can work from home and have a lot more time with their children. They had to make a CHOICE, unlike a lot of parents out there who you often wonder if they really want the children they have.

Come around to my house in the inner west some night and I'll let you hear the screaming of a few of my neighbours as they shout abuse to their children. I can honestly say I would never say anything like they do to a child. It disgusts me, but hey, as far as you're concerned that would have less impact on the child than gay parents.

As to what is bigger than us, you remind me of the bigots I faced when I was younger. The whole Sodom and Gomorrah, man shall not lie with man as he would with a woman crap. If homosexuality was so wrong then why did Jesus never bother to mention it? As for the good ol' Sodom tale, I'd argue God was quite rightly incensed over the rape of an innocent, than of homosexuality!

 

[tinhat]

You mean like they do publicly in the Mardi Gras.

View attachment 51851

It's a free country. People can do as they want and don't need to consult or inform you about it. Why would you want to know what goes on in people's bedrooms?

 

[bellenuit]

No, but it would be interesting to know why gay supporters of same sex "marriage" on this thread are averse to declaring their sexual orientation. Whatever happened to "gay pride"?

Well considering there are only about 6 or 7 or so actively contributing to this thread with perhaps 3 or 4 supporting gay marriage (representing the relative support of the population as a whole), it would hardly be unreasonable to assume that there are probably no active contributors that are gay. I don't know how much of the population declare themselves gay, but I would be surprised is it were more than 5%, so of 3 or 4 people it is more likely that none are gay. So when you say the gays on this thread are adverse to declaring their sexual orientation, it might just be because there are none.

I haven't heard any declarations from you as to your sexual orientation, but to be honest I wouldn't have paid attention anyway. It's irrelevant. In any case, it is often the case that those who stridently express that they are heterosexual turn out to be closet gays.

 

[Calliope]

It's a free country. People can do as they want and don't need to consult or inform you about it. Why would you want to know what goes on in people's bedrooms?

What are you rabbiting on about? When did I ask you, or anyone else to "consult or inform" me on anything, let alone their bedroom habits?:screwy:

And bellenuit, just to put you "who doth protest too much" on the right track...nowhere on this thread have I made any criticisms or made any derogatory remarks or passed any judgement on or about anyone's sexual orientation.

 

[sydboy007]

You mean like they do publicly in the Mardi Gras.

Another post that adds nothing to the discussion, except maybe to show a level of distain

 

[Ves]

Another post that adds nothing to the discussion, except maybe to show a level of distain

Don't worry he will have backed himself into a corner by the time Pyne and Abbott do one of the biggest backflips in modern political history and leglislate gay marriage in Australia in their governmental period.

 

[Calliope]

Don't worry he will have backed himself into a corner by the time Pyne and Abbott do one of the biggest backflips in modern political history and leglislate gay marriage in Australia in their governmental period.

Maybe you will be the one in the corner.

This morning shadow education spokesman, Chris Pyne suggested that Coalition’s stance may be reviewed in the lead up to or after the September election but out gay brothers and sisters would be wise not to hold their breaths waiting. This is especially so given that Tony Abbott spoke at a community forum last night and said he believed “gay marriage” was not an inevitability, at least “not any time soon.”

http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com...tralian/comments/new_zealand_first_this_time/

 

[bellenuit]

And bellenuit, just to put you "who doth protest too much" on the right track...nowhere on this thread have I made any criticisms or made any derogatory remarks or passed any judgement on or about anyone's sexual orientation.

Hardly putting me on the right track, when I never ever claimed that.

But you have several times stated that gays' motivations for wanting gay marriage are malevolent, rather than what they state their motivations to be. You have made statements that want to denigrate marriage.

I think everyone who thinks homosexuality is a lifestyle choice should listen carefully to what this girl is saying. It has been posted before. Words that stood out when I listened to it were: "I met gay teens who are happy. I didn't think that was possible.". Why should we deny them the right to be happy. And if marriage helps them fulfil their happiness, why should we get in the way. It doesn't in any way may marriage less meaningful for others. Considering all the forced marriages, child brides, broken marriages etc., adding to the mix people who aspire to be happily married can only enhance the institution.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=InN6bt0B8x0

 

[Gringotts Bank]

I'm not fixed on any point of view, just throwing up some ideas here, some contradictory... like the following single case study...

Derren Brown is gay. He's also an expert in psychology, mentalism, influence and hypnosis. What he can do with peoples minds is quite extraordinary....there are few as skilled and powerful as him. He wasn't happy being gay when he was younger. He tried everything on himself in order to 'cure' his gayness. And it didn't work. While working on oneself is not that easy, one might say that this is fairly strong evidence for the genetic/biological cause.

I'll just reply to myself here... and it looks like Derren has changed his mind on homosexuality.

[edit]....or has he?.....sorry about that!

Read here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/mos...wn-longer-wants-control-mind--improve-it.html

 

[Calliope]

Hardly putting me on the right track, when I never ever claimed that.

But you have several times stated that gays' motivations for wanting gay marriage are malevolent, rather than what they state their motivations to be.

ma·lev·o·lent
/məˈlevələnt/
Adjective
Having or showing a wish to do evil to others.
Synonyms
malicious - malignant - ill-disposed - spiteful - vicious

Now you are just being silly.:screwy:

You have made statements that want to denigrate marriage.

That is a lie. You seem intent on denigrating me. What have I done to incur your animosity? I know it is a sensitive issue and I have not been critical of any poster for that reason.