Gay Marriage

Julia · 4 July 2013

sydboy007 said:
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.

Did you ever consider what they put the women they married through?

Macquack · 4 July 2013

Calliope said:
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.

Well bugger me Calliope, I always thought of you as a cranky old bastard who would say that "children should be seen and not heard".

stewiejp · 5 July 2013

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

Absolutely, but the part you quoted, I feel was a very good point from sydboy007.

stewiejp · 5 July 2013

Julia said:
Did you ever consider what they put the women they married through?

One could only imagine Julia. A mate of mine was in this situation, married, in a good relationship with her and luckily for them she understood, even knew, before he "came out" in the 80's or 90's. She was his "best mate" from school days and they are both still very very good friends.

I guy I used to work with was married to a girl who left him for another girl, (who from memory he also worked with) and he was absolutely gutted. He did re marry a number of times but last I heard he hadn't found happiness and had serious mental issues. Whether they were there because of the first marriage break up or as a result of something else I'll never know but he had some very serious issues last time I saw him, and the few years i worked with him.

Tink · 5 July 2013

sydboy007 said:
I was wondering how long it would take for someone to try and link those men with gay marriage. Sigh. The two issues are unrelated.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/name...or-40-years-20130630-2p5da.html#ixzz2Xq6qNsDF
How can you say this case is not related, when these two were interviewed by the ABC infront of us, that they were a gay couple and how hard it has been for them and what they were going through being accepted and wanting a child in 2010
This was a push for gay marraige.

This is what gay marraige will be opening up, the right for them to adopt, and since they cant have babies on their own, baby making factories.

sydboy007 · 5 July 2013

Julia said:
Did you ever consider what they put the women they married through?

Julia, everyone suffered because of how society lacked acceptance back then.

The gay men suffered because they had to be someone who they weren't

The wives suffered because from the descriptions I heard they the men could never be fully honest and intimate in the way a couple of should be.

I'm sure the children suffered too because of the underlying stress of their parents.

I'm 41 and not married and in this day and age no one cares. 50 years ago if you weren't married by your mid 20s then tricky questions started to be asked.

It's quite sad the pain and hurt caused by the intolerance.

- - - Updated - - -

Tink said:
http://www.smh.com.au/national/name...or-40-years-20130630-2p5da.html#ixzz2Xq6qNsDF
How can you say this case is not related, when these two were interviewed by the ABC infront of us, that they were a gay couple and how hard it has been for them and what they were going through being accepted and wanting a child in 2010
This was a push for gay marraige.

This is what gay marraige will be opening up, the right for them to adopt, and since they cant have babies on their own, baby making factories.

Tink, it's already possible for gay couples to have children. Some friends have 3 lovely children by doing surogacy in California. It's expensive, but at least it's been a conscious choice for them to have children. I see some of the late teen couples in the public housing around my area and get saddened to think how their children will grow up in an environment of excessive alcohol consumption, parents screaming virulent abuse at each other, sometimes at the children too.

I'd take a loving gay couple as parents over some of the sadly lacking parents living around me. I'm sure the children would have a better chance of growing up well adjusted members of society compared to what they're getting now.

Calliope · 5 July 2013

Macquack said:
Well bugger me Calliope, I always thought of you as a cranky old bastard who would say that "children should be seen and not heard".

Maybe I was once Mac, but when you get to be a grandfather and get involved with your grandchildren, especially in shopping centres, your whole attitude changes .

Knobby22 · 5 July 2013

Calliope said:
Maybe I was once Mac, but when you get to be a grandfather and get involved with your grandchildren, especially in shopping centres, your whole attitude changes .

I thought the same thing as Mac, pleasantly surprised with you Calliope. Your grandchildren are making you soft I just see the joy of the little ones also with their proud Dads etc.

CanOz · 5 July 2013

This is a little off topic, but something I see allot of here too, it's amazing how children really bring out the old parent in grandparents!

CanOz

Tink · 5 July 2013

True CanOz, and lovely to hear Calliope.
Life is a full circle, and grandparents see it all again, the fast paced lifestyle of parents working with young children.

sinner · 5 July 2013

Yet another thread in the "General chat" area which makes me cringe for the sake of humanity...

I wonder if the reasons people have come up with as to why they are against gay marriage are things they just tell themselves over and over without even thinking about them?

I mean, it's pretty disingenious to try and use fear of "if we let gay marriage happen, bad things X, Y and Z will also inevitably happen", considering 22 countries in Europe, consisting largely of countries which are significantly more developed and much much older than Australia, have already legalised it in one form or another, without even the slightest change in societal norms. That is to say, in all of the countries where same sex unions fall under the aegis of the law, the people who said bad things were going to happen have been proved as laughably incorrect and narrow minded.

As for the absurd claim that it's "wrong" because of biology (ignoring the fact that the argument is not over whether it's "wrong" or "right"), do you also apply the same crazy rules to an infertile woman who wants to marry a fertile man (or vice versa)? Of course not!

"I'm sorry, but since you can't biologically have kids, you can't get married".

Isn't that just completely rediculous? Please explain why the rule of "can't marry because biology" doesn't apply to couples where one or both partners are infertile? Oh, it's completely arbitrary? I see.

McLovin · 5 July 2013

pavilion103 said:
Worst post I've maybe seen on this forum

Really? I'm flattered, but in truth you were my inspiration; I made the issue black and white, then offered an opinion dressed up as fact.

Perhaps if you read some of the stuff you post you might change your opinion.

Here's an example for you...

If I said

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

But replaced homosexuality with miscegenation, would the statement still be good by you?

Calliope · 5 July 2013

sinner said:
I mean, it's pretty disingenious to try and use fear of "if we let gay marriage happen, bad things X, Y and Z will also inevitably happen", considering 22 countries in Europe, consisting largely of countries which are significantly more developed and much much older than Australia, have already legalised it in one form or another, without even the slightest change in societal norms. That is to say, in all of the countries where same sex unions fall under the aegis of the law, the people who said bad things were going to happen have been proved as laughably incorrect and narrow minded.

I suppose you are referring to Europe's burgeoning Muslim population. But I suppose they will eventually change Sharia Law to accommodate gay marriage. That is, if they can overcome their "narrow-mindedness".

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/letters/10065280/Muslim-leaders-stand-against-gay-marriage.html

dawson2 · 6 July 2013

Tink said:
Well its not important to our children and it discriminates against them.
They have rights.
I dont have a problem with gay people, but I have a problem with them trying to change the marraige act for the future children of this world.
I will stand by that.

The marraige act is about mum and dad loving each other and having a child and every child deserves to grow up with that thinking.

Gays can not have children on their own and until they do, the marraige act should stay as is.
I get abit sick of hearing they need to get married to save the children of this world. Sorry that doesnt wash.

The marraige act entitles them to adopt and have the full advantages of a married couple, I think the children should get a say in that too.
I think they would prefer their mother and father.

Completely agree. I recently attended a lecture given to dads by a child psychologist in relation to teenage daughters. She said that research showed that teenage daughters looked more to their fathers at this stage in their lives for self esteem and identity. A shock to dads present. I have certainly noticed this in my own daughter where I have sensed she is consciously noticing me as a male role model. The mother's role is also important of course but more so in earlier years, according to the speaker. The irrefutable biological fact that procreation occurs naturally between a man and woman and the ensuing interplay between mothers and fathers in the healthy development of the child would suggest that depriving a child of these dynamics is not in the best interests of the child. Sure, children can survive most situations but in terms of what is BEST for them, traditional marriage is the most natural scenario. We just need to get back to doing it better! The fact that marriage is undervalued now due to divorce rates etc, does not mean it is inadequate as an institution. If someone plays chess badly it doesn't make chess an inferior game. I cannot understand why gay people want to have anything to do with marriage. Until recently I have only ever noticed them mocking the "old fashioned" institution. Why aren't they seeking so called "equality" through other avenues? Can't help wondering what the real agenda is here....

bellenuit · 6 July 2013

dawson2 said:
Completely agree. I recently attended a lecture given to dads by a child psychologist in relation to teenage daughters. She said that research showed that teenage daughters looked more to their fathers at this stage in their lives for self esteem and identity. A shock to dads present. I have certainly noticed this in my own daughter where I have sensed she is consciously noticing me as a male role model. The mother's role is also important of course but more so in earlier years, according to the speaker. The irrefutable biological fact that procreation occurs naturally between a man and woman and the ensuing interplay between mothers and fathers in the healthy development of the child would suggest that depriving a child of these dynamics is not in the best interests of the child. Sure, children can survive most situations but in terms of what is BEST for them, traditional marriage is the most natural scenario.

If would agree with your assertion that children are better off in a traditional marriage if you define traditional as heterosexual parents that have a good loving relationship between themselves and their children. But many marriages are not traditional in that sense. Nobody is suggesting taking a child out of that environment and giving it to gay parents for adoption.

But you cannot deny that there are millions of children in circumstances that do not offer the love and protection of this traditional marriage environment and I don't need to list what such circumstances are. There is no reason to deny these children the opportunity to be adopted by potential parents that tick all the boxes except that of being a heterosexual couple. Instead of comparing the traditional marriage environment to the gay marriage environment and saying which is best for children as a generalisation, you should be comparing the environment the child up for adoption currently is in compared to the environment offered by the potential adopters, be the gay or heterosexual.

All things being equal except for the parents' gender, I would say that first preference should go to adoption by heterosexual parents for the reason you gave of the different but complementary roles that the parents play due to their differing genders. But rarely is it an all things equal choice. There are likely circumstances where the other non-gender attributes of the parents can make it better for the child to be adopted by particular gay parents as opposed to other couples, gay or heterosexual, that may be hoping to adopt that child.

Calliope · 6 July 2013

bellenuit said:
If would agree with your assertion that children are better off in a traditional marriage if you define traditional as heterosexual parents that have a good loving relationship between themselves and their children. But many marriages are not traditional in that sense. Nobody is suggesting taking a child out of that environment and giving it to gay parents for adoption.

But you cannot deny that there are millions of children in circumstances that do not offer the love and protection of this traditional marriage environment and I don't need to list what such circumstances are. There is no reason to deny these children the opportunity to be adopted by potential parents that tick all the boxes except that of being a heterosexual couple.

(My bolds)

All well and good I suppose, except that in Australia there is no shortage of traditional married couples "who tick all the boxes," wanting to adopt children. There is no shortage of "adopters" there is a shortage of "adoptees". I think you can rest assured that children available for adoption are not denied anything.

The waiting time is up to six years.

Just 333 children were adopted last financial year, the lowest number on record,

Read more: http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/pa...re/story-fnet08xa-1226536401261#ixzz2YEL5tih5

bellenuit · 6 July 2013

Calliope said:
(My bolds)

All well and good I suppose, except that in Australia there is no shortage of traditional married couples "who tick all the boxes," wanting to adopt children. There is no shortage of "adopters" there is a shortage of "adoptees". I think you can rest assured that children available for adoption are not denied anything.

The waiting time is up to six years.

Just 333 children were adopted last financial year, the lowest number on record,

Read more: http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/pa...re/story-fnet08xa-1226536401261#ixzz2YEL5tih5

That's probably correct, but I am really arguing on the basis of whether gays should not be allowed to adopt period. With so few adoptees, I would think that providing a child to a gay couple would not be the correct decision IMO, but there may be some exceptions where that might not be the case. The one that comes to mind is where there may already be some family connection between one of the gays and the child up for adoption, perhaps if the parents were killed in an accident and one of the gays is a close relative of the family. Perhaps a sister of the mother/father where there is already a strong bond with the child. I'm going out in a limb here as I am not familiar with how these situations are treated with non-gay family members.

But outside the current Australian scene, I can envisage situations where adoptees far outnumber potential adopters, in which case there should be no refusal to allow adoption purely on the basis of the parents sexuality, if they are otherwise suitable.

dawson2 · 6 July 2013

bellenuit said:
If would agree with your assertion that children are better off in a traditional marriage if you define traditional as heterosexual parents that have a good loving relationship between themselves and their children. But many marriages are not traditional in that sense. Nobody is suggesting taking a child out of that environment and giving it to gay parents for adoption.

But you cannot deny that there are millions of children in circumstances that do not offer the love and protection of this traditional marriage environment and I don't need to list what such circumstances are. There is no reason to deny these children the opportunity to be adopted by potential parents that tick all the boxes except that of being a heterosexual couple. Instead of comparing the traditional marriage environment to the gay marriage environment and saying which is best for children as a generalisation, you should be comparing the environment the child up for adoption currently is in compared to the environment offered by the potential adopters, be the gay or heterosexual.

All things being equal except for the parents' gender, I would say that first preference should go to adoption by heterosexual parents for the reason you gave of the different but complementary roles that the parents play due to their differing genders. But rarely is it an all things equal choice. There are likely circumstances where the other non-gender attributes of the parents can make it better for the child to be adopted by particular gay parents as opposed to other couples, gay or heterosexual, that may be hoping to adopt that child.

Adoption is only one of the problems. There is also the surrogacy issue. The Marriage Act is based on biological truth. There are perfectly sound reasons why one would not want to allow adoption or surrogacy by gay people. Placing a child in a situation where the child will learn that it is OK (and if the marriage act is changed, sanctioned by government) and entirely natural for two woman or two men to sexually cavort when it has no foundation in biological truth is grossly irresponsible and ultimately a backward step for society.
If men and woman choose to behave like this it needs to be a private matter as it is now, with the individuals dealing with the morality of that as they see fit.
It seems from some of your comments that you agree with the view that heterosexual relations are entirely in keeping with biology in its natural form, and as you say, children would be better off in an heterosexual traditional marriage environment for that reason. That really is the end of the story. It is not just about love, it is about what is true. Depriving a child the right to a father and a mother is negligent and should never be enshrined in law.

Julia · 6 July 2013

Is the adoption/surrogacy question being exaggerated? My impression is that most homosexuals seeking to get married aren't doing it so they can have children which they seem to be able to do now anyway. viz Penny Wong and her partner.

There seemed to be pretty complete acceptance across our broader society when homosexual couples were granted equivalent financial rights, access to social security benefits as partners etc. It has just been since the actual word 'marriage' has been the focus that so much controversy has arisen.

Given the large numbers of marriages that fail, I'm a bit puzzled about the attraction of marriage as an institution anyway. Just can't see that it makes any difference to the quality of a relationship, the level of love and loyalty, if you have a bit of paper that declares you are married. As long as de facto couples, whether heterosexual or homosexual, have all the same rights as couples who are married, what is so essential about 'marriage'?
The whole equality concept is now even being extended to nursing homes where homosexual couples can access all the same rights as heterosexual. (I must admit I have no idea what this constitutes.)

So, can some of the gay marriage advocates perhaps explain why Civil Unions are not a satisfactory compromise?

Tink · 6 July 2013

Thankyou for your excellent posts Dawson, and I agree.

More child psychologists should be involved in this.

The best interests of the child is paramount, and I am actually offended that they want to drop the standards for our children in changeing the marraige act, that mothers and fathers are not important in a childs life.

The marraige act should not be changed as a standard by law for future generations.

The natural process of a mother and father having children and being with their children is of utmost importance. Each parent is valuable in a childs process.
Every child wants to know their identity.

As we have seen by the last couple of posts, the gay couples arent doing any better in that department so saying that we are doing a bad job with children does not give them the right to want to change the law.
Marraige is about parents being with their children.There are plenty of parents, mums and dads, that a doing a fantastic job with thriving children in loving homes

We have all grown up with the GOLD standard, and it should NOT move down any levels for our children.
By law means everything will change, as it gets told in schools, the whole scenario, and thats wrong for our children

Marraige is not about paying someone to have a baby.

Gay Marriage

Julia

In Memoriam

Macquack

stewiejp

stewiejp

Tink

sydboy007

Calliope

Knobby22

Mmmmmm 2nd breakfast

CanOz

Home runs feel good, but base hits pay bills!

Tink

sinner

McLovin

Calliope

dawson2

bellenuit

Calliope

bellenuit

dawson2

Julia

In Memoriam

Tink

Similar threads

Gay Marriage

In Memoriam

Mmmmmm 2nd breakfast

Home runs feel good, but base hits pay bills!

In Memoriam

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency