Gay Marriage

[bellenuit]

Two roads, equally valid IMO:
1. Change terminology so all unions outside of religious setting are referred to as civil unions.
2. Allow homosexual unions to be referred to as marriages.

There is a third option.

Since marriage was originally a civil institution, shouldn't we use the word "marriage" for all civil unions regardless of sexuality. Then let the religions go find their own word.

 

[Zedd]

There is a third option.
Since marriage was originally a civil institution, shouldn't we use the word "marriage" for all civil unions regardless of sexuality. Then let the religions go find their own word.

+1 wp.

 

[Tink]

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.

to add to my post, I suppose its how you define marraige.

Marraige was always about keeping children with their original parents, so that children were raised in a loving environment and to this day is still told in schools that way.
Thats the gold standard - mum and dad love each other get married and have a baby.

Even child psychologists have done all in their power to make sure children spent time with each one.
This is a complete turn around.
I dont know why religion keeps getting mentioned as I see it more about children than religion.

It seems that adults just want to destroy their little world.

 

[sydboy007]

to add to my post, I suppose its how you define marraige.

Marraige was always about keeping children with their original parents, so that children were raised in a loving environment and to this day is still told in schools that way.
Thats the gold standard - mum and dad love each other get married and have a baby.

Even child psychologists have done all in their power to make sure children spent time with each one.
This is a complete turn around.
I dont know why religion keeps getting mentioned as I see it more about children than religion.

It seems that adults just want to destroy their little world.

Yet I would say the majority of same sex "marriages" would have no interest in children. I certainly don't. I do love the time I get to spend with my friends children. A few years back I was toying with the idea of leaving the IT industry and going around the world teaching English. Completed my CELTA then did some extra courses, one to specialise in teaching small children. It's certainly helped a lot with the way I'm able to explain ideas to them. There's no more rewarding experience than giving someone the AH HA, seeing that spark of understanding in their eyes. To be able to give that to a child is priceless, and quite often I learn a bit from them. Often itt can be quite a challenge to follow the chain of their reasoning, but very rewarding. I'm often reminded of:

William Blake - Auguries of Innocence

To see a world in a grain of sand,
And a heaven in a wild flower,
Hold infinity in the palm of your hand,
And eternity in an hour.

You have shown no proof that children raised by a same sex couple are in any way harmed, or that they don't have the same level of emotional well being. The concept of family has changed so much over the last few hundred years. I live in an area that was really a dormitory suburb of Sydney in the late 1800s till probably the 1960s, maybe later. All those tiny 1 bedroom workers cottages, filled by families of 6 maybe 8 people. Now look at us. At least 1 bedroom per person in a house, media room AND living room so we can pretty much ignore each other when we're at home as much as possible.

No longer do we live as an extended family. Go back 100 years and it was quite common to have 3 generations, maybe even 4, living under the 1 roof. Now, that's pretty rare. It was common in my parents generation to be 1 of 4+ children. These days single child families is quite common. How can parents be so cruel to raise a child that spends so much time alone, unable to interact with anyone their own age? How do they learn the social skills required of them outside the family if they can't learn them at home?

A lot of the arguments against gay marriage are based on the concept of the ideal family from the 1960s onward. They ignore the thousands of years of human history, and the evolving nature of how familes have been structured. They even ignore the fact that for a long time civil unions / marriages for same sex couples was not uncommon till religious persecution gave us close to two milleniums of demonising homosexuality.

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

note: I don't think parents with a single child are cruel. Below is how stereotypes become embedded in society:

Granville Stanley Hall, an American psychologist and researcher, first explored how only children were “different” back in 1895. Hall sent out a survey for educators and physicians to describe unusual children, and the results were published by his protégée, E.W. Bohannon, in 1896. Bohannon’s “A Study of Peculiar and Exceptional Children” concluded that only children (who made up 46 of the 1,045 children surveyed) were more likely to be peculiar, ugly, poorly behaved, and stupid. It's important to note that in the 19th century having many children was the norm, while only children were fairly rare. Greatist Expert Dr. Mark Banschick explains that families with only one child were more likely to be dysfunctional due to health (both physical and mental) issues, which could have a negative effect on raising children. Regardless of rationale, Hall and Bohannon's work effectively created the myth of the socially inept and bratty only child.

- - - Updated - - -

There is a third option.

Since marriage was originally a civil institution, shouldn't we use the word "marriage" for all civil unions regardless of sexuality. Then let the religions go find their own word.

Don't let the Rev Nile and Cardinal Pell hear you say such things.

Just another inconvenient fact for those against gay marriage

 

[Knobby22]

Hall and Bohannon's work effectively created the myth of the socially inept and bratty only child.

It's a myth?? Not from my life experience.

 

[Julia]

It's a myth?? Not from my life experience.

Oh my goodness, Knobby. I'm an only child. I shall now sulk and worry.

Seriously, it's about as rational as saying all home schooled children will be socially inept because they haven't experienced the vicissitudes of a public school.

In my experience quite the opposite is the case and these children are usually confident socially and able to talk on a mature level over a wide variety of subjects.

 

[Knobby22]

Actually I agree with you Julia. Many only children do tend to be very good socially and self aware because they have to be, but they do tend to be more selfish because they haven't had to share. But I am one of 5 so I am biased.
I think the best children are the middle children as they have to deal with everything. (I'm eldest).

In the end though, parenting is by far the biggest factor.

 

[Whiskers]

An interesting take on the ACT government new Gay Marriage laws... to be challenged by the Fed government.

Apparently Christene Foster (Abbotts sister) was married to a man, up until a few years ago, and has four children abt 20 yo.

Mr Abbott's gay sister and Sydney City Councillor, Christine Forster, has bought into the debate, calling for federal Liberal MPs to be allowed a conscience vote on the issue if legislation comes before the Parliament.

Revealing that she and her partner have been engaged since March, Ms Forster said she hoped the new Liberal Party room would regard the issue as a matter of conscience.

"Marriage is about love, it's about people's feelings, it's a matter of the heart," she told Channel 9.

"That for me means it should be a conscience decision, rather than a policy decision."

She said she wanted to get married in Sydney, "ideally" under a federal marriage act.

"We want to get married here and have our marriage recognised here in Australia," she said.

Ms Forster said her brother congratulated her and her partner on their engagement and said he would be "there at the wedding".

Mr Abbott has left the way open for the federal party room to decide if there should be a conscience vote on the issue.

In September 2012, laws legalising same-sex marriage failed to pass Parliament.

Labor MPs were allowed a conscience vote but Coalition MPs were not.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-...lenge-over-act-same-sex-marriage-laws/5037674

On face value when they say "Marriage is about love, it's about people's feelings, it's a matter of the heart"... it's all seemingly harmless enough and well intentioned... BUT when the criteria is " it should be a conscience decision, rather than a policy decision", the conflicts of interest and Pandora's box arise.

Polygamy meets all her criteria for such people... so why do we legislate against it in the modern world?

Conscience: the inner sense of what is right or wrong in one's conduct or motives... is hardly an accurate logical barometer of what is right, let alone what is fact.

Our 'inner sense of what is right or wrong' can be affected by influences beyond our knowledge and control. That ought to ring alarm bells.

 

[Macquack]

On face value when they say "Marriage is about love, it's about people's feelings, it's a matter of the heart"... it's all seemingly harmless enough and well intentioned... BUT when the criteria is " it should be a conscience decision, rather than a policy decision", the conflicts of interest and Pandora's box arise.

Polygamy meets all her criteria for such people... so why do we legislate against it in the modern world?

Conscience: the inner sense of what is right or wrong in one's conduct or motives... is hardly an accurate logical barometer of what is right, let alone what is fact.
Our 'inner sense of what is right or wrong' can be affected by influences beyond our knowledge and control. That ought to ring alarm bells.

I think you are over analysing what Christine Foster said.

Why have you defined "conscience" when all she was referring to was a "conscience vote".

I fail to see any alarm bells ringing.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

I think we need to be respectful towards anyone who wishes to clarify their relationship, whether heterosexual or homosexual.

It is my belief that the community has moved on from this "debate".

Godbotherers may want to cling to their book, and that is understandable, 2000 years of precedent is difficult to unwind.

My greatest fear is though that marriage will be devalued at a great cost to children.

gg

 

[sydboy007]

My greatest fear is though that marriage will be devalued at a great cost to children.

gg

Can you elaborate as to how and why it would be devalued? How would it affect children? Are the children born out of wedlock (probably referred to as a bastard child by your generation) somehow negatively impacted by this? What about the children conceived out of wedlock? Do parents who "lived in sin" before getting married carry some taint that passes via conception?

 

[Whiskers]

I think you are over analysing what Christine Foster said.

Why have you defined "conscience" when all she was referring to was a "conscience vote".

I fail to see any alarm bells ringing.

I was a bit loathe to elaborate too much in a hurry, just cause people to think about it.

I tried to open the door of possibilities a bit with "Polygamy meets all her criteria for such people... so why do we legislate against it in the modern world?"

I was particularly loathe to mention, but none the less, if one's emotional feelings and conscience is the only criteria, that by definition also open the argument for incest and paedophile etc and generally unmitigated free sexual relationships to be recognised (as in not condoned) legally.

I know it's a long way from what people normally associate with "Marriage is about love, it's about people's feelings, it's a matter of the heart" and " it should be a conscience decision, rather than a policy decision"... but those criteria should not in themselves be sufficient to make law. There ought to be something more fundamental to the physiological sciences or at least some rationale of the fundamentals underpinning social standards.

The main thrust behind the gay marriage is lobbying for support of a consensus of opinion.

The argument of consensus is a flawed argument. Dr Jensen a Lib MP made a profound distinction re Climate change that also applies here.

"In the climate area there is appeal to authority and appeal to consensus, neither of which is scientific at all," Dr Jensen told Fairfax Media on Thursday.

"Scientific reality doesn't give a damn who said it and it doesn't give a damn how many say it."

It was wrong to accept the view of the 97 per cent of climate scientists who agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely caused by human activities, because "the argument of consensus . . . is a flawed argument,"​

I know, the activists will scream what ramifications... but just as the world was convinced of a lie by the tobacco lobby for forty years (and many other examples throughout history) there is some evidence that homosexuality is not natural... it seems to occur more frequently in recent times, but that just makes it more common... not more natural.

For me there needs to be something more substantial than a warm fuzzy feeling to make this sort of legal changes with wider ramifications... something more logical, preferably with scientific credibility.

 

[Calliope]

I don't see why proponents of polygamous marriage couldn't put up the same "equal rights" argument as gays.

Polygamy Hits Australia
The Australian reports 20 July 2011 that Muslims in Australia are right now forming polygamous marriages:

A system of "legal pluralism" based on sharia law "abounds" in Australia, according to new research by legal academics Ann Black and Kerrie Sadiq.

They have found that Australian Muslims have long been complying with the shadow system of religious law as well as mainstream law....

The latest research has found that while polygamy is unlawful, mainstream law accommodates men who arrive in Australia with multiple wives and gives some legal standing to multiple partnerships that originate in Australia.

"Valid Muslim polygynist marriages, lawfully entered into overseas, are recognised, with second and third wives and their children able to claim welfare and other benefits," they write.

Changes to the Family Law Act in 2008 meant that polygamous religious marriages entered into in Australia could also be recognised as de facto marriages. "It means a second wife can be validly married under Islamic law . . . and be a defacto wife under Australian law with the same legal entitlements as any other de facto relationship," they write.

 

[Knobby22]

I don't see why proponents of polygamous marriage couldn't put up the same "equal rights" argument as gays.

True, I can't see how that you could argue against it. I personally wouldn't want it though.

 

[sydboy007]

True, I can't see how that you could argue against it. I personally wouldn't want it though.

One has to think keeping 1 wife happy is hard enough.

How does one do it for 2 or 3, maybe even 4.

 

[Tink]

Agree with you, GG.
I often wonder the ones that advocate for these children, if they have ever been in the position themselves.

Also a great post by dawson

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.

 

[sails]

?..My greatest fear is though that marriage will be devalued at a great cost to children.

gg

I agree, GG. How adults choose to live is their choice but children have no choice.

 

[sydboy007]

Agree with you, GG.
I often wonder the ones that advocate for these children, if they have ever been in the position themselves.

Also a great post by dawson

I agree, GG. How adults choose to live is their choice but children have no choice.

Care to back up your statements with some evidence?

The family "unit" for want of a better term, has evolved so much over time. Do you consider the current insular segregated family "unit" to be the ideal one?

I was chatting with my Gran a couple of days ago and listening (again) to some of her childhood stories and one thing I noticed was how common it was to have multiple generations living under the one roof. Now the majority demand a room each, multiple entertainment and living spaces, and barely interact with each other at the dining table.

Pop down to Redfern Sydney and see what the current generation of children there are going through, then tell me a loving gay couple would be more harmful. Maybe a walk through the 20 suburbs with the highest levels of unemployment in Australia might open your eyes.

The sad reality is a lot of children are not living in the idealised conditions you believe in. If you think living with a gay couple is more damaging to a child than living in one that shouts abuse at them and uses language I'd never use, well I think that says more about you than anything about gay marriage.

There's a reasonable amount of low density public housing around me, and I can honestly say few of the children living in those houses have much hope of escaping the poverty trap they're in. You do see the odd cohesive family not plagued by some form of addiction, but in general terms it would take a miracle for these children to grow up and be able to function within society. School can show you the social norms expected of you, but if they're not reinforced at home, well kids are going to take the actions of their parents as what's acceptable over what they see at school.

Lest you think I'm talking about stuff I've seen from the outside, one of my cousins is a heroine addict. He has 2 children with his wife. The kids were already held back a year at school due to their poor performance. I used to think the drugs during pregnancy had probably put them in the slow lane.

My uncle (mum's youngest brother) and his wife decided they would seek custody of the children, and fortunately they were successful. A year later and both the children are performing above average, they have a normal weight, they just look like the kind of children you'd find in any loving family. I'm blown away by how fast they "grew" once they were in an environment that was supportive, where someone would sit with them and help them with their homework, give them words of praise and encouragement, and where they have a nutritious diet.

So by your argument a child in an abusive family is still better off than one with loving gay parents? It's not a small problem. Some studies say 1 in 6 children lives in poverty. It's a safe bet to think a decent % of those children live in dysfunctional families where at least 1 parent has an addiction or mental health issue.

 

[Tink]

Syd, I have already said my views in here, and its to do with marraige and changing the law, thats it.
I think the standard should stay the same for future generations for our children.

Its nice that you talk about your mum, your dad, your nan, your pop, your uncle and who ever else, family to me is important...and that is the essence of this whole thing, the family unit.

 

[sydboy007]

Syd, I have already said my views in here, and its to do with marraige and changing the law, thats it.
I think the standard should stay the same for future generations for our children.

Its nice that you talk about your mum, your dad, your nan, your pop, your uncle and who ever else, family to me is important...and that is the essence of this whole thing, the family unit.

Fair enough.

But what about the children when the family unit is broken?

Do yo u advocate taking no action?

Honestly, do you believe a child in a dysfunctional family is better off than one living with loving gay parents? It's a simple question.