Gay Marriage

[Julia]

Tink, I have just returned from the shopping centre. It is the school holidays and there were dozens of mothers there, shopping with one, two or three children. I love to watch the interaction between the mothers and their small children especially when they are at an age where they ask questions about everything. Their bright faces and inquiring minds insist on answers. The busy (and sometimes harassed) mothers always take the time to answer their questions. For the toddlers every outing is a voyage into the unknown.

Good to know at least one section of society meets with your approval, Calliope. It's touching to see you being impressed by such loving interaction between mothers and their children.
You must have been fortunate enough to avoid those mothers addressing their offspring in terms of obscenities.

The relationship between a mother and her younger children fascinates me. The influence of the father comes in at a later stage.

Really? Could you cite the evidence for this?

 

[Calliope]

Good to know at least one section of society meets with your approval, Calliope. It's touching to see you being impressed by such loving interaction between mothers and their children.
You must have been fortunate enough to avoid those mothers addressing their offspring in terms of obscenities.

Strange that my supermarket comments seem to have stirred up some much hostility and sarcasm.. First DocK, then Sydboy and now, of course you. Syd wants to know "what was the point of your post?" More to the point what is the point of your posts? I suppose you colluded to put me down. The attack was out of the blue. What is your motive? Just spite? Why?

Really? Could you cite the evidence for this?

Nope. Just an off-the cuff remark.

Is the inquisition over? Perhaps the three of you could gang up another scapegoat.

I will not be responding to any more of this harassment...unless it's an apology.

 

[Tink]

DocK, you see it as discrimination on the gays, I see it as discrimination on the children.

We apologized to a whole generation, and whether it was right or wrong at the time, the children suffered.
It seems you havent taken much notice of the discussions in here when we mentioned that changeing the marraige act, the doors could open to people wanting more.
Gays have always been against marraige as it restricted their freedom saying we were stupid for committing.

As said, I dont have a problem with gays but I do have a problem with them trying to change the marraige act by law.

Throwing that bigot would around does nothing, and if that journalist from the ABC was more aware when she did that interview with those two monsters, that child would not have suffered, instead we had to agree how wonderful they were that they wanted to adopt a child to complete their family.

 

[DocK]

Strange that my supermarket comments seem to have stirred up some much hostility and sarcasm.. First DocK, then Sydboy and now, of course you. Syd wants to know "what was the point of your post?" More to the point what is the point of your posts? I suppose you colluded to put me down. The attack was out of the blue. What is your motive? Just spite? Why?



Nope. Just an off-the cuff remark.

Is the inquisition over? Perhaps the three of you could gang up another scapegoat.

I will not be responding to any more of this harassment...unless it's an apology.

You are quite wrong - there has certainly been no collusion between Sydboy, Julia and myself. Do you care to apologise for such an unwarranted accusation? Did you even stop to consider that more than one person reading your post might independently decide to respond to it - as is often the case when numerous readers find a post to be so far removed from reality?

 

[DocK]

DocK, you see it as discrimination on the gays, I see it as discrimination on the children.

We apologized to a whole generation, and whether it was right or wrong at the time, the children suffered.
It seems you havent taken much notice of the discussions in here when we mentioned that changeing the marraige act, the doors could open to people wanting more.
Gays have always been against marraige as it restricted their freedom saying we were stupid for committing.

As said, I dont have a problem with gays but I do have a problem with them trying to change the marraige act by law.

Throwing that bigot would around does nothing, and if that journalist from the ABC was more aware when she did that interview with those two monsters, that child would not have suffered, instead we had to agree how wonderful they were that they wanted to adopt a child to complete their family.

Tink, you are obviously entitled to your views, but it annoys me when you post them as if they were substantiated facts, rather than simply your beliefs. I have taken notice (and participated in at times) the various discussions in this thread alluding to

when we mentioned that changeing the marraige act, the doors could open to people wanting more.

By more, I assume you're referring to adoption, surrogacy etc. If I'm understanding you correctly your main objection to gay marriage is that you don't believe two gay people should be allowed to have children and be a family, and that you feel children raised in such an environment would be harmed or discriminated against? That is a valid concern, and one on which people will have differing opinions - based no doubt on their own religious views, family values, actual experience and anecdotal information. As I clearly hold a different view on the ability of gay people to parent a child, you can surely understand why I would question your opinions when they're posted as facts. Such as:

Gays have always been against marraige as it restricted their freedom saying we were stupid for committing.

You have posted this as a fact, but I doubt you could substantiate it at all, and it is a grossly unfair generalisation to make. It may be your opinion, and you are entitled to it, but please don't post your opinions as if they are facts - it simply isn't honest, and can be quite hurtful to those you're denigrating.

Clearly you and I are never going to reach accord on this subject, as it seems we both have fairly entrenched opposing views. I'm sure your views stem from genuine concern for children (even though I think they're largely unfounded) and I hope that you can allow that my views have been formed in the same vein. I think it best we now agree to disagree on the subject before matters become uncivil.

 

[Calliope]

DocK, you see it as discrimination on the gays, I see it as discrimination on the children.

We apologized to a whole generation, and whether it was right or wrong at the time, the children suffered.
It seems you havent taken much notice of the discussions in here when we mentioned that changeing the marraige act, the doors could open to people wanting more.
Gays have always been against marraige as it restricted their freedom saying we were stupid for committing.

As said, I dont have a problem with gays but I do have a problem with them trying to change the marraige act by law.

Throwing that bigot would around does nothing, and if that journalist from the ABC was more aware when she did that interview with those two monsters, that child would not have suffered, instead we had to agree how wonderful they were that they wanted to adopt a child to complete their family.

I know how you feel Tink. I have previously been accused of being a bigot by bigoted people. I am disappointed that DocK and Julia take the cynical view of mothers shopping with their children, in terms of "toddlers being smacked and berated by their mothers" and "addressing their children in terms of obscenities".

I was only commenting on my experience for one hour on one day, and i will not retract from my view that I was full of admiration for what I observed. The last thing I expected was the nastiness my comments attracted.

DocK thinks I mave a generational problem. Maybe, but as a parent and a grandparent, I have learned to take a much more tolerant and understanding attitude to the problems faced by young mothers who are forced to take their young, and sometimes unruly, children shopping with them.

 

[Julia]

You are quite wrong - there has certainly been no collusion between Sydboy, Julia and myself. Do you care to apologise for such an unwarranted accusation? Did you even stop to consider that more than one person reading your post might independently decide to respond to it - as is often the case when numerous readers find a post to be so far removed from reality?

+1, obviously.

 

[sydboy007]

I'll just paste a few quotes from George Takei (Mr Sulu for non Star Trek fans) and I think he sums up quite nicely the attitude of those who fear gay marriage.

Amazingly, since Stonewall (riots by drag queens at the Stonewall Inn NYC in protest of police harassment and brutality in 1969), the question of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) rights has evolved from whether homosexuals should have any place in our society to whether gay and lesbian couples should be accorded equal marital stature.

Whenever one group discriminates against another, it often boils down to a visceral, negative response to something unfamiliar. I call this the ''ick'', which is often at the base of the politics of exclusion. In March, for example, a young woman at a rally in Washington against same-sex marriage was asked to write down why she was there. Her answer: ''I can't see myself being with a woman. Eww.''

But the ''ick'' goes beyond LGBT issues. It once blocked public displays of interracial affection. A white person didn't kiss a black person on American television until 1968 - on Star Trek when Captain Kirk kissed Lieutenant Uhura. That was quite controversial. Indeed, two decades before that kiss, when I was growing up in California, it was illegal for Asians and whites to marry. Now I'm married to a white dude. How times have changed.

To help justify the ''ick,'' many turn to the Bible, perhaps because science doesn't lead to the conclusion that homosexuality is unnatural. As one saying goes, homosexuality is found in more than 400 species, but homophobia in only one. But references to religious texts are not a solid footing on which to base notions of traditional marriage. Concerns about the separation of church and state aside, traditional marriage has never been what its homophobic proponents believe. As author Ken O'Neill reminds us, the fact that you can't sell your daughter for three goats and a cow means we've already redefined marriage.

Because social mores change with each generation, the ''ick'' is not effective at preventing changes to our institutions. Importantly, same-sex marriage is supported by a majority of young people: a recent Field Poll in California showed that 78 per cent of voters under the age of 39 favour marriage equality.

------------------------

As I found out by doing a bit of research same sex unions were not uncommon through histroy, but after the Christian Roman Emperors Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans issued an edict against same sex unions, and ordered those in one to be executed, well things changed.

In late medieval France, it is possible the practice of entering a legal contract of "enbrotherment" (affrèrement) provided a vehicle for civil unions between unrelated male adults who pledged to live together sharing ‘un pain, un vin, et une bourse’ – one bread, one wine, and one purse. This legal category may represent one of the earliest forms of sanctioned same-sex unions.

Societal attitudes change. I remember my first years in Sydney and heterosexual male friends were scared to be seen on Oxford St, whereas these days no one really cares.

I old enough to still remember the time when it as illegal to be homosexual. Imagine being told who you are is illegal, a sin. QLD didn't get rid of their homosexual laws till 1990.

Maybe some of the below sounds familiar?

The arguments most frequently put forward by religious opponents are best presented by way of a summary of the points expressed in the submissions by representatives of the Baptist, Presbyterian and Lutheran churches to the Queensland Criminal Justice Commission's Parliamentary Committee:
· The incidence of homosexuality will increase;
· The incidence of AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases will dramatically increase;
· Homosexual acts are physically unnatural;
· Homosexuality will be encouraged in schools;
· Homosexuality is contrary to the interests of society;
· Decriminalisation will endanger the welfare of children;
· Decriminalisation will lead to the acceptance and proliferation of sexual 'perversion' in society;
· Decriminalisation will result in moral instability and the downfall of society;
· Homosexual acts are a sin and detestable to God.

 

[boofis]

perhaps because science doesn't lead to the conclusion that homosexuality is unnatural. As one saying goes, homosexuality is found in more than 400 species, but homophobia in only one

This is just silly. It's the "Is vs. Ought to be" problem; science can tell us what is, but it cannot tell us what ought to be. The behaviour of animals is no justification to carry out, or not carry out, any 'act'.

 

[pavilion103]

Hmmm I'd say science DOES lead is to believe that it is unnatural.

- reproduction occurs between a man and woman (sustains the race)
- disease much more widespread in homosexuality. It's a far more dangerous lifestyle. The anal passage isn't designed for penetration. Life expectancy far less.
- even if someone has a disposition towards homosexuality it doesn't mean anything. Many have a disposition towards alcoholism. I wouldn't say to them "Drink till your heart it content."


I just get sick of those riding on their high horses, calling people bigots and intolerant who agree with the idea that relations are intended to be between a man and a woman.
People should discuss this openly and agree or disagree without silly name calling.

 

[pavilion103]

There are very good and valid reasons why some people disagree with homosexuality and that is their prerogative.

 

[stewiejp]

Great post sydboy007, especially the bit boofis quoted.

pavilion103, whilst I'm no expert on the anal penetration specifics, and the physical dangers etc, "sustaining the race" on this over populated planet is hardly a concern for us humans anymore is it? Last time I looked we were bursting at the seams.

True, if one has a disposition towards alcohol, as a society we should not encourage them to drink as much as they can, but comparing that to homosexuality isn't really accurate is it? How about we compare it to someone who has a predisposition for oxygen? We don't deny people that do we?

Whilst it is true anyone is allowed an opinion (in this wonderful country), and some are for and against homosexuality - it is actually against the law to discriminate based on ones sexuality. Just putting that out there.

 

[sydboy007]

Hmmm I'd say science DOES lead is to believe that it is unnatural.

- reproduction occurs between a man and woman (sustains the race)
- disease much more widespread in homosexuality. It's a far more dangerous lifestyle. The anal passage isn't designed for penetration. Life expectancy far less.
- even if someone has a disposition towards homosexuality it doesn't mean anything. Many have a disposition towards alcoholism. I wouldn't say to them "Drink till your heart it content."


I just get sick of those riding on their high horses, calling people bigots and intolerant who agree with the idea that relations are intended to be between a man and a woman.
People should discuss this openly and agree or disagree without silly name calling.

* With 7 billion people on the planet over reproduction seems to be a larger issue than lack of. Dare I say that heterosexuality is currently causing planetary degradation that may lead to mass extinctions if we're not able to do a lot more with vastly less?

* Could you site any academic papers to prove that homosexuality is a dangerous lifestyle. It is in some ways because of the violence targeted towards non heterosexuals. Maybe you've been listening to Australian Christian Lobby boss Jim Wallace - he claims homosexuals die younger than smokers. I'd say homosexual men are far more likely to get tested for STIs, which would then tend to bias any statistics. Many STIs are asymptomatic. It's a shame many girls do not get tested for chlamydia when they're younger as it can lead to infertility if undetected over a long period.

* Your use of the term disposition is false. I'm gay, and never had any form of sexual desire about woman (though plenty of them as friends). You can't encourage someone to be gay. It's NOT a lifestyle or choice, just the way a minority of the population is genetically programmed (for want of a better term). Maybe one day science will give us a reason why, maybe not.

 

[boofis]

Great post sydboy007, especially the bit boofis quoted.

You do know I'm disagreeing with what he quoted, yes?

 

[pavilion103]

Disagree it's only based on genetic programming and no element of choice. People have gone from straight to gay and gay to straight. This can't be denied, even if there are a number who struggled with it even when in a straight relationship.

 

[McLovin]

Disagree it's only based on genetic programming and no element of choice. People have gone from straight to gay and gay to straight.

I agree. It's the same with black people. They make the choice, if they didn't go in the Sun they wouldn't be black.

 

[CanOz]

Interesting discussion...

You've got to wonder though, why are some people really gay? I mean really gay and not fashionably gay...

There is no question that it is not "normal" in our definition though and it can be argued scientifically that it is a genetic defect can it not?

Anyway, i choose to accept them just as i accept someone with a birth defect, or a disability. they're not what i consider "normal" but that does not give me any reason to deny them rights, human rights...

They can and should be able to do what they like as long as they bring no more harm to themselves or anyone else by being gay.

Only my opinion....

CanOz

 

[pavilion103]

I agree. It's the same with black people. They make the choice, if they didn't go in the Sun they wouldn't be black.

Worst post I've maybe seen on this forum

 

[sydboy007]

Interesting discussion...

You've got to wonder though, why are some people really gay? I mean really gay and not fashionably gay...

There is no question that it is not "normal" in our definition though and it can be argued scientifically that it is a genetic defect can it not?

Anyway, i choose to accept them just as i accept someone with a birth defect, or a disability. they're not what i consider "normal" but that does not give me any reason to deny them rights, human rights...

They can and should be able to do what they like as long as they bring no more harm to themselves or anyone else by being gay.

Only my opinion....

CanOz

I can sort of accept your point. It's a bit like eye colour or a birth mark I suppose.

As for being really gay, well I've known some heterosexual men who on first appearance seem "gay". Then you get the machismo men, and we can see how much trouble that gets the footy players into.

It's partly personality, partly persona I suppose. More often than not you'd probably never know you were talking to a homosexual unless they told you.

 

[sydboy007]

Disagree it's only based on genetic programming and no element of choice. People have gone from straight to gay and gay to straight. This can't be denied, even if there are a number who struggled with it even when in a straight relationship.

Could you provide some evidence to this claim?

I'd accept that a lot of people had to hide their sexuality and have then come out in their later years.

It was a shock to me when I used to go to the Gay & Lesbian Counselling Service coming out group when I was 20. I couldn't understand why guys in their 50s were coming to the group. Then you listen to their stories, how they got married, had kids, tried to be something they weren't, eventually unable to live that life any more.

I can't imagine what their lives were like. I was lucky to grow up at a time when attitudes were changing for the better, though I still had to fight to get the anti vilification laws into NSW so hateful people could no longer incite others into bashing gays - or asians or women or pretty much anyone for any reason.

I've been lucky, only ever suffering intimidation from drunk straight guys a few times since I moved to sydney. A guy that was renting a room from me in 2001 went out for his birthday. He was a goth. He didn't even make it to the train station before a group of guys decided to bash him and rob him, leaving him near unconscious in the gutter.

He eventually got himself home, and my other house mate helped him get to hospital. I cam home from work the next morning and freaked out that there was a trail of blood from the front gate to the front door and into the kitchen. You see the pictures in the paper, but I swear nothing prepares you fro the reality. He was so lucky to not sustain any permanent harm from his wounds, but he could see out of 1 eye only for at least a week. He'd been victim 3 of five for that group that night. they're weren't too bright as by the time the police caught up with them they still had most of the victims wallets on them.

He'd prob not been targeted for being gay, but all a couple had been, and all of their victims had been different.

So saying gay people are going to molest children, or die younger, carry diseases, or any of the other myths and lies that get propagated, well it then lets some of the fringe in the community start to believe they have the right to take violent action against whatever group is being denigrated. When I see what religious people have to say about homosexuality it reminds me of what the Nazis used to say about the Jews eg a Nazi propaganda newspaper, told Germans that Jews kidnapped small children before Passover because “Jews need the blood of a Christian child, maybe, to mix in with their Matzah."