Gay Marriage

[Tink]

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.

So whats that got to do with changeing the marraige act?
You are making out that every marraige breaks down and it doesnt.

As children, I think they should be brought up believing in marraige as a family unit.

 

[Calliope]

Care to back up your statements with some evidence?

...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.

Sorry to rain on your parade syd, but the love that most "loving gay parents" have for each other is, in the majority of cases, a very fleeting thing when promiscuity rules.

In America;

Incubating a national health problem

Gay men have between 4 and 100 times more sex partners than heterosexual men. Lesbians are 4.5 times more likely to have over 50 sex partners in their lifetime compared with heterosexual women. Seventy-five to ninety percent of women who have sex with women have also had sex with men. Only 10 percent of homosexual relationships are monogamous after five years.

The incidence of HIV in men who have sex with men is 44 times that in heterosexual men, and 40 times greater than women
Homosexual men are 46 times more likely than heterosexual men to contract syphilis.
HIV is the No. 10 cause of death for black males and No. 24 for white males (Table D).
63 percent of syphilis cases were among men who have sex with men.
The majority of lesbians commonly have sex with men.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2012/08/homosexual-promiscuitys-national-health-crisis/#1qsV95jkbdL0oiVh.99

 

[sydboy007]

So whats that got to do with changeing the marraige act?
You are making out that every marraige breaks down and it doesnt.

As children, I think they should be brought up believing in marraige as a family unit.

No I'm not, just that there's a significant minority of children currently living in family unit's far removed from the ideal you believe they need.

Like most things in life it's quite often not about getting the ideal, but rather the best of what's available.

There's sadly too many children in family units that would be far better off with a loving gay couple.

Changing the marriage act wont change that fact.

 

[sydboy007]

Sorry to rain on your parade syd, but the love that most "loving gay parents" have for each other is, in the majority of cases, a very fleeting thing when promiscuity rules.

In America;

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2012/08/homosexual-promiscuitys-national-health-crisis/#1qsV95jkbdL0oiVh.99

* In general terms the GLBT community has a higher level of testing, so more cases of STDs will be reported for them

* Recent research shows girls aged 12-15 years are testing positive for chlamydia at higher rates than older women in Australia

* More than 100 children under the age of 14 tested positive for STIs in the NT recently

* the sexual revolution has made sex less of a taboo.

* risky sexual behaviour is not defined by sexual preference.

* Sadly we've seen a 10% increase in new HIV infections over the last 12 months

I'd also say that people who are not in a committed stable relationship would be very unlikely to be looking to adopt children, whatever their sexuality.

ps what's the TRUE rate of monogamous heterosexual relationships after 5 years?

 

[Calliope]

There's sadly too many children in family units that would be far better off with a loving gay couple.

To use your words;

"Care to back up your statements with some evidence?"

 

[sydboy007]

To use your words;

"Care to back up your statements with some evidence?"

Pop around to my place on a Friday night or Saturday morning and listen to what some of the parents in the public housing are shouting at their children since they're fully tanked up. If you're lucky you might get to hear a particular couple where the wife seems to lock the male partner out and then we can all hear their expletive ridden "talk" while a child generally screams through it.

Then we'll head for a walk past some more public housing and see some of the feral looking kids running around, as we make our way to the Redfern tower blocks to see what families of addiction look like. Quite often 1 or both of the parents have been to the bottle shop on Botany Rd to pick up the 4.4L Berri Wine casks, child(ren) in tow at times.

We can repeat this process in the 20 suburbs with the highest levels of unemployment in Australia and hopefully by then you've started to see the reality out there. Judging by your shopping centre experience I don't think you've been exposed to the sad reality that there's too many broken families with children growing up that are being shown less than the ideal way to live their lives.

 

[Chris45]

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.

I don't know if this question has been asked and answered before, but can someone please tell me why the homosexual community, which contains many of our most creative people, can't come up with a new name for their civil unions?

We have "straight" and "gay" which everyone seems to be happy to accept, so why can't we have "marriage" for the straights and something else for the gays?

So far the best alternative I've heard is "glarriage" which sounds pretty awful and surely they can do better than that.

A homosexual union is clearly different from a heterosexual union so, providing both types of unions have equal financial and legal rights (not sure about the child issue), wouldn't a new name solve the problem?

When you're talking to someone and they say they're "married", it would be helpful to be able to immediately conclude what sort of relationship they're in without having to ask additional awkward questions or make assumptions that may be completely wrong.

 

[Calliope]

Pop around to my place on a Friday night or Saturday morning and listen to what some of the parents in the public housing are shouting at their children since they're fully tanked up. If you're lucky you might get to hear a particular couple where the wife seems to lock the male partner out and then we can all hear their expletive ridden "talk" while a child generally screams through it.

Then we'll head for a walk past some more public housing and see some of the feral looking kids running around, as we make our way to the Redfern tower blocks to see what families of addiction look like. Quite often 1 or both of the parents have been to the bottle shop on Botany Rd to pick up the 4.4L Berri Wine casks, child(ren) in tow at times.

We can repeat this process in the 20 suburbs with the highest levels of unemployment in Australia and hopefully by then you've started to see the reality out there. Judging by your shopping centre experience I don't think you've been exposed to the sad reality that there's too many broken families with children growing up that are being shown less than the ideal way to live their lives.

Okay, that's the reality. But what the hell has it to do with gay marriage? Are you saying that "loving gay parents" can show children " the ideal way to live their lives?"

Again I ask where is your evidence?

 

[sydboy007]

When you're talking to someone and they say they're "married", it would be helpful to be able to immediately conclude what sort of relationship they're in without having to ask additional awkward questions or make assumptions that may be completely wrong.

I dare say the awkwardness is all yours. If a non straight person tells you they're married then you knowing they're not in a heterosexual relationship wont be an issue for them.

 

[sydboy007]

Okay, that's the reality. But what the hell has it to do with gay marriage? Are you saying that "loving gay parents" can show children " the ideal way to live their lives?"

Again I ask where is your evidence?

Where's your evidence that a child raised by a gay couple is harmed?

That's what you and tink seem to be arguing.

I'm happy to say that in the ideal world a child brought up by a loving heterosexual couple is probably the best way.

When the ideal ISN'T available, there's plenty of less desirable outcomes than a gay couple providing a loving safe stable environment for a child.

If you think that a child being raised by parents with addiction issues / physical abuse / sexual abuse / mental abuse / general lack of care is going to grow up "better" than a child brought up by a gay couple who provide a safe loving stable environment, then I shake me head in sadness because the "care" you have for the children is not true.

By your logic, a parent removing their child from a situation where the other parent was abusive is somehow detrimental to the child since they no longer have a male and female parent.

 

[Tink]

So going by your account, Syd, the destruction and dysfunction in society with drugs and alcohol is just getting worse and you want to add more fuel to the fire by destabilizing marraige, the core family unit?
For what reason is gay marraige a betterment in society?
Bringing in gay marraige isnt going to fix these things.

All the things you enjoy as a child, your mum, your dad etc, you are quite happy to take that away from another child?

As said, I dont have a problem with gays but since you cant have children on your own, I dont think its fair on the child and we shouldnt have to change the marraige act.
Marraiges last longer when parents are with their children and thats a fact.

Its already been stated that gays dont adopt, and I dont know if you have ever dealt with people trying to find their parents, its not fair and its not right.
What about history and medical?

We arent going to agree on this as I feel very strongly about children being with their natural parents, and thats exactly what marraige is about.

Ah yes, the sexual revolution, and that seems to be the reason the gays have been trying to destroy the family unit, so that it works out better for themselves.
Redefine family because traditional models hold sexual activists back
Redefine and remove standards so anything goes

Marraige is about children, stability, their parents and a happy home.

 

[Calliope]

I'm happy to say that in the ideal world a child brought up by a loving heterosexual couple is probably the best way.

PROBABLY??? What a grudging admission.

When the ideal ISN'T available, there's plenty of less desirable outcomes than a gay couple providing a loving safe stable environment for a child.

Stable? loving? safe? Only 10 percent of homosexual relationships are monogamous after five years. http://www.wnd.com/2012/08/homosexua...5jkbdL0oiVh.99

If you think that a child being raised by parents with addiction issues / physical abuse / sexual abuse / mental abuse / general lack of care is going to grow up "better" than a child brought up by a gay couple who provide a safe loving stable environment, then I shake me head in sadness because the "care" you have for the children is not true

At least I have had children. I don't think you have. Your views are based on ideology and what you have gleaned on your midnight strolls.

By your logic, a parent removing their child from a situation where the other parent was abusive is somehow detrimental to the child since they no longer have a male and female parent.

Not at all. By my logic the best foster parents or carers are in a heterosexual family situation where there are other children. "i shake me head in sadness" that you are should think otherwise.

 

[sydboy007]

So going by your account, Syd, the destruction and dysfunction in society with drugs and alcohol is just getting worse and you want to add more fuel to the fire by destabilizing marraige, the core family unit?
For what reason is gay marraige a betterment in society?
Bringing in gay marraige isnt going to fix these things.

All the things you enjoy as a child, your mum, your dad etc, you are quite happy to take that away from another child?

As said, I dont have a problem with gays but since you cant have children on your own, I dont think its fair on the child and we shouldnt have to change the marraige act.
Marraiges last longer when parents are with their children and thats a fact.

Its already been stated that gays dont adopt, and I dont know if you have ever dealt with people trying to find their parents, its not fair and its not right.
What about history and medical?

We arent going to agree on this as I feel very strongly about children being with their natural parents, and thats exactly what marraige is about.

Ah yes, the sexual revolution, and that seems to be the reason the gays have been trying to destroy the family unit, so that it works out better for themselves.
Redefine family because traditional models hold sexual activists back
Redefine and remove standards so anything goes

Marraige is about children, stability, their parents and a happy home.

Tink

it's not about destroying the family unit. I would argue that adoption is a very marginal issue when it comes to gay marriage. If gay marriage causes the destruction of civilised society, well it was probably near the end anyways.

Can you ever see a situation where a child is better off to not be with 1 or both of their parents? As I was trying to explain to you and Calliope, I see that situation EVERY day, admittedly with mainly the same families.

Your "Marraige is about children, stability, their parents and a happy home" maybe true for you, but what about all those people today getting married and not wanting to have children. What about all the marriages where that ISN'T happening. Marriage a few hundred years ago was really about the transfer of wealth from generation to generation, and it still is to a degree today, though at least women are no longer viewed as chattels (at least in most wester countries)

Are you even able to put into words what the harm is to children brought up by a gay couple? Could you accept gay foster parents, or would you think institutionalised care for a child is better over a home environment with a gay couple? My understanding is at times there's just not enough people willing to provide foster care for children.

This is what the Govt sees in terms of foster care:

Foster carers can be same sex couples, or single and homosexual. What matters is a person’s ability to provide care for a child in a way that promotes their well-being, ensures that all of their needs are being met and protects them from harm.

 

[Calliope]

I'm afraid sydboy you lost all credibility for me when you blindly followed the ABC's fallacious line and said;

interesting to note no major bush fire since European settlement has occurred before December.

 

[Macquack]

I'm afraid sydboy you lost all credibility for me when you blindly followed the ABC's fallacious line and said;

interesting to note no major bush fire since European settlement has occurred before December.

:topic

 

[Calliope]

:topic

Wrong again Macquack. I was referring to syd's credibility on this thread. If you deliberately mislead on one thread, you lose credibility on all threads. You of all people should know this.

 

[Calliope]

This "wedding" should be a hoot.

EVERYONE'S had a wedding invite that makes them feel a bit uncomfortable

It might be from an ex-partner, or someone you were secretly in love with at school. Or a workmate who you secretly hate but who has guilted you into going. Maybe it's your creepy uncle and he's up to wife number four - who happens to be younger than your children.

Of course, you could also be the Prime Minister of Australia, and the wedding invite is from your sister. She's marrying her long-time partner, someone she's obviously in love with, and it should be a great knees-up for all involved.

Only thing is, she's gay. So she's not allowed to get married, under the law, made by the government you lead, in keeping with opinions you've made clear, repeatedly.

When the news leaked of Christine Forster and Virginia Edwards's engagement last week, the fact that they might be engaged for a long, long, long - possibly two or more terms of government long - time was hidden in all the camp happiness.

"Instead of bridesmaids, we're going to have drag queens!'' Edwards said - firmly dating the whole event somewhere in the mid-1990s. No mention was made of whether one of said bridesmaids would be Mr Abbott.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...forsters-wedding/story-fnh4jt60-1226745113900

 

[sydboy007]

Wrong again Macquack. I was referring to syd's credibility on this thread. If you deliberately mislead on one thread, you lose credibility on all threads. You of all people should know this.

If you believe that then Tony lost all credibility the day he was caught lying about the pensioner electricity bill, though he'd lied quite a few times prior to that.

I also seemed to remember you saying a comment in one thread is not relevant to another, at least when it was used against you.

I'm still waiting for you to provide one skerrick of proof that a child brought up by a same sex couple is permanently harmed by this.

 

[Calliope]

I'm still waiting for you to provide one skerrick of proof that a child brought up by a same sex couple is permanently harmed by this.

Only time will tell...and the children will be the guinea pigs.

 

[Chris45]

Only time will tell...and the children will be the guinea pigs.

Sadly, children are usually the "guinea pigs" and what's best for the parents usually takes priority over what's best for the child.

Syd, since you seem to have some inside knowledge of this issue, can you suggest why the gay community cannot come up with an alternative name that both sides could accept?

I agree with you that while stable loving heterosexual couples make the best parents (Tink's gold standard), stable loving gay couples are surely preferable to dysfunctional unloving straight couples and the world would be a much better place if we could somehow disable procreation in the latter group.