Gay Marriage

[sydboy007]

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.

Gay marriage isn't a huge issue for me any more. Go back 20 years when a lot of the laws were blatantly discriminatory against same sex couples and I was quite active in pushing for change. I still find it hard to believe that 20 years ago when I was in uni it was legal to incite violence against gays.

Since a lot of laws have changed, the majority of the "rights" marriage gives are now available to same sex couples, so the equality marriage would bring has been generally achieved via other avenues.

I think those who still view same sex marriage as important believe that blocking the use of the term marriage for a same sex couple means society views their relationship as inferior.

I find generally those most against same sex marriage use a few straw man arguments, and one of the tops ones is around children. When you question this, they're never actually able to give a detailed reason, or they hold one standard that exists only in a utopian world.

You can see from Calliope's arguments the view that same sex relationships are not on the same level as heterosexual relationships, yet I think all of us have seen enough news reports about how unfaithful heterosexul partners can be to each other. NRL / AFL scandals anyone?

Personally I think a bit of patience will see things cleared up. We moved on from slavery as good, women as chattels, racial segregation, seeing homosexuality as a mental illness. Social progression will move things along, just maybe not as fast as some in the GLBT community would like

 

[sydboy007]

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

So your argument about children and same sex marriage is based on a fear it MIGHT be harmful for children rasied by a same sex couple, but you have no proof it WILL be harmful to them?

But then we have a situation where children in dysfunctional families are PROVEN to have a much higher chance of exhibiting criminal behaviours as they grow up, that they will perform poorly at school which will nearly always have life long negative effects.

ps How's Tony's credibility with you?

 

[Calliope]

So your argument about children and same sex marriage is based on a fear it MIGHT be harmful for children rasied by a same sex couple, but you have no proof it WILL be harmful to them?

I thought I answered that. I guess the social engineers down the track will decide which are the most harmful...drunken abusive addictive parents or unstable, abusive, drunken gay "parents". I guess stability is the key, and neither can provide it. It's a scary scenario for the kids.

ps How's Tony's credibility with you?

Off topic! But to be truthful it's only slightly above your credibility level i.e. pretty low... following his inaction on the Randall travel rorts.

 

[Whiskers]

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.

On the point of stability of who you love (for sexual purposes) a lot, if not a very substantial number of 'gays' are just that, un- stable... as in starting out as heterosexual and switching to gay, or actively both.

So in that sense it's difficult to argue they are just as stable as normal heterosexual couples.

I'll see if I can find some scientific evidence that the 'gay' lobby is doing their best to deny... in arguably a similar vain as people with mental disorders such as anxiety and depression often ignore their symptoms or in some cases, such as paedophilia and schizophrenia, blatantly deny they have a problem.

 

[Chris45]

Gay marriage isn't a huge issue for me any more. Go back 20 years when a lot of the laws were blatantly discriminatory against same sex couples and I was quite active in pushing for change. I still find it hard to believe that 20 years ago when I was in uni it was legal to incite violence against gays.

I've always considered the mindless violence directed at gays by "straight" thugs was abhorrent and if I'd had a say in their punishment I would have started with castration and then progressively amputated sections of their bodies until they ended up like Monty Python's Black Knight. The gay community has produced some of the most creative minds in the world and it's a shame so many people don't appreciate that.

Since a lot of laws have changed, the majority of the "rights" marriage gives are now available to same sex couples, so the equality marriage would bring has been generally achieved via other avenues.

I think those who still view same sex marriage as important believe that blocking the use of the term marriage for a same sex couple means society views their relationship as inferior.

Yes many still do think it's important apparently, so if everyone would start urging the gay marriage lobby to come up with a new name they might start making progress towards gaining acceptance. Gay unions are different from straight unions (not necessarily inferior) so the names used should also be different. Why can't they see that?

Personally I think a bit of patience will see things cleared up. We moved on from slavery as good, women as chattels, racial segregation, seeing homosexuality as a mental illness. Social progression will move things along, just maybe not as fast as some in the GLBT community would like

I remember back in the 70s learning that males are the consequence of male hormones (determined by the XY chromosome pair) acting on a female substrate, and sexuality is a spectrum ranging from extreme masculinity at the blue end, if you like, to extreme femininity at the red end, and we are all positioned somewhere along that spectrum. Classic evidence of this is the disturbing case of Candice Armstrong who now has a one inch penis , http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/a...uilder-drug-habit-left-penis-facial-hair.html

How these stupid religious zealots can still claim that homosexuality is a mental illness is beyond me.

 

[Chris45]

On the point of stability of who you love (for sexual purposes) a lot, if not a very substantial number of 'gays' are just that, un- stable... as in starting out as heterosexual and switching to gay, or actively both. So in that sense it's difficult to argue they are just as stable as normal heterosexual couples.

I was referring to stable as in "long lasting". Given that about 30% of marriages end in divorce, heterosexual unions are certainly not very stable. I don't know what the figure is for homosexual unions.

I believe many gays, especially in older generations but even today in Asian communities, start out as heterosexuals because of family pressures and switch sides when they realise they're living a lie so it's probably not very fair to judge them. If people were allowed to be themselves from birth the situation would be different.

I joke that used to circulate many years ago was, "All the world is a little queer, except thee and me ... but even thee is a little queer at times."

 

[sydboy007]

I thought I answered that. I guess the social engineers down the track will decide which are the most harmful...drunken abusive addictive parents or unstable, abusive, drunken gay "parents". I guess stability is the key, and neither can provide it. It's a scary scenario for the kids.



Off topic! But to be truthful it's only slightly above your credibility level i.e. pretty low... following his inaction on the Randall travel rorts.

In what scenario do you see a same sex couple that are drunks or have some other form of addiction getting through the adoption process without their addiction being seen as precluding them from adopting a child?

I'm still waiting for you to give me an understanding as to what harm you think will be done to the adopted child.

I've continually advocated that a stable loving environment provided by a heterosexual couple is the best family unit, but where this "gold" standard is not available, a stable loving environment provided by a same sex couple is likely to be a great improvement for the child(ren).

 

[sydboy007]

On the point of stability of who you love (for sexual purposes) a lot, if not a very substantial number of 'gays' are just that, un- stable... as in starting out as heterosexual and switching to gay, or actively both.

So in that sense it's difficult to argue they are just as stable as normal heterosexual couples.

I'll see if I can find some scientific evidence that the 'gay' lobby is doing their best to deny... in arguably a similar vain as people with mental disorders such as anxiety and depression often ignore their symptoms or in some cases, such as paedophilia and schizophrenia, blatantly deny they have a problem.

Whiskers

what you're saying is pretty much WRONG. I've known I was gay pretty much all my life. i have memories of being young and thinking men had a nicer body shape to women. Pretty much all my gay friends say the same thing, whether male or female. It's not a choice or something that just "happens" as we grow up.

As for your stability argument that heterosexual relationships are more stable, I can't really comment if it's true or not. I've seen just s many long term relationships on both sides with the people I know, and seen quite a few relationships break apart too. I would say for sam sex relationships there isn't the need to stay in a loveless relationship "for the kids" and I wonder how many couples are unhappily married for this reason.

I'm offended that you've tried to link my homosexuality to some form of mental disease, or the straw man argument linking homosexuality and paedophilia. Any legitimate reporting on this issue will show that it's nearly always a family member or family friend that abuses children.

I get the feeling your views are tainted by religion, and if you want to cast stones let me remind you of the disgusting actions regarding paedophilia that organised religions have been involved in! I'd argue a child is in more danger with a devoutly religious person than a homosexual one, and the statistics would back me up on that!

 

[Whiskers]

Syd, don't take offence... I didn't say all, just... "a lot, if not a very substantial number of 'gays'" are by definition un-stable sexual orientation. Again, in referring to Abbott's sister and a number of high profile cases, I just used 'un-stable' as a metaphor, or maybe more of a simile for not being strictly or strongly of just male or female sexual orientation.

And I can assure you I'm not 'religious'... spiritual, yes... but religious as in a literal follower of the bible or some cultish version of it... definitely not.

I actually had an uncle-in-law openly, but not loud in your face in a gay couple, who was one of the nicest people I knew (but hell don't tell the ex that). And one thing I've recognised is that gays tend to be a bit higher intelligence and more successful in many, including financial aspects of their life. The scientific research I've seen tends to support and explain that too. So, my 'beef' is not about the sexuality' just the demands of some to re-classify 'marriage' when 'civil union' or simply defacto relationship explains and differentiates the different legal arrangements quite adequately.

I know many more have 'come out' and or changed over on the back of increasing popular acceptance, but to some extent that could also be explained as a self-fulfilling prophecy... the trendy thing to do.

For me it's not demeaning to be gay, anymore than it is to suffer from a mental disease or disability. From some experience with the latter two I can understand not being accepted as 'normal' in the eyes of more judgemental people.

Being gay is not necessarily a bad thing... even though it may be that some people become gay because of bad things happening to them, or their mother during conception and pregnancy... but we are all human beings, just manifest in different ways. That's the point I believe everyone has to start from to firstly accept and secondly understand the meaning of it all.

As for the stability of relationships, that's a whole nother issue.

 

[sydboy007]

Syd, don't take offence... I didn't say all, just... "a lot, if not a very substantial number of 'gays'" are by definition un-stable sexual orientation. Again, in referring to Abbott's sister and a number of high profile cases, I just used 'un-stable' as a metaphor, or maybe more of a simile for not being strictly or strongly of just male or female sexual orientation.

If I understand what you're saying here, then it would just as equally apply to heterosexuals ie the Alpha males and then the more even tempered ones, or the pretty in pink females compared to the ones who are out doing some adrenaline sports. I'd argue that few people fit the "stereotype' of their gender, whatever their sexual orientation is.

So, my 'beef' is not about the sexuality' just the demands of some to re-classify 'marriage' when 'civil union' or simply defacto relationship explains and differentiates the different legal arrangements quite adequately.

Yet historically same sex couples were able to be married. It was religious intolerance that brought about the persecution of homosexuality and pretty much "stole" marriage from same sex couples. I think there's a reasonable argument that allowing same sex marriage is really just going back to the way things were.

Now that most laws have changed, and what a defacto relationship can be defined as, a lot of the reasons for me are no longer there for marriage, but I do understand why some in the GLBT community are fighting for it, because even in this reasonably enlightened day too many people still view homosexuality negatively and do their utmost to devalue the contribution we make to society. Just look at the criticisms of Gillard not being married but in a defacto relationship.

I know many more have 'come out' and or changed over on the back of increasing popular acceptance, but to some extent that could also be explained as a self-fulfilling prophecy... the trendy thing to do.

I doubt that anyone would choose the negatives around being gay. You are probably referring to the older generation where it wasn't acceptable to be gay and they would get married and have families and spend much of their lives miserable, causing a lot of issues for their family. Now it's easier for them to be who they truly are. It's not like they suddenly decided to be homosexual. I'd have thought Brokeback Mountain would have helped more people to understand this.

For me it's not demeaning to be gay, anymore than it is to suffer from a mental disease or disability. From some experience with the latter two I can understand not being accepted as 'normal' in the eyes of more judgemental people.

Argh. Why even say this. Plenty of people out there still want to link the two.

Being gay is not necessarily a bad thing... even though it may be that some people become gay because of bad things happening to them, or their mother during conception and pregnancy... but we are all human beings, just manifest in different ways. That's the point I believe everyone has to start from to firstly accept and secondly understand the meaning of it all.

Being homosexual is NOT a bad thing. It is a small part of who a person is. As a heterosexual I doubt you even think about your sexual orientation. For most homosexuals we don't either, though we're more conscious of it simply due to being a minority. A person has no more control of their sexual orientation than they do about their eye or hair colour.

Trust me, people do not turn gay due to bad things happening to them, but plenty of bad things have happened to us throughout history due to bigotry and intolerance.

 

[Tink]

Syd, you mention dysfunction in society and I see these sort of laws trying to override the gold standard, destructive for society.
They should have picked another word.

Rather than pushing families together, its tearing them apart.
Rather than celebrating mothers and fathers and their children, this is pushing them out of the family home.
I dont see that as equal omitting one.
Both parents are important in a family environment.
Saying that they are the same environment for children is wrong.

For what reason is gay marraige a betterment in society?

 

[Calliope]

I've continually advocated that a stable loving environment provided by a heterosexual couple is the best family unit,

No you haven't. You said "probably".:bad:

 

[sydboy007]

Syd, you mention dysfunction in society and I see these sort of laws trying to override the gold standard, destructive for society.
They should have picked another word.

Rather than pushing families together, its tearing them apart.
Rather than celebrating mothers and fathers and their children, this is pushing them out of the family home.
I dont see that as equal omitting one.
Both parents are important in a family environment.
Saying that they are the same environment for children is wrong.

For what reason is gay marraige a betterment in society?

How would it be destructive?

Do you see a gay couple being allowed to take adopt a child from a loving stable heterosexual couple?

What are you views on children who are currently growing up in dysfunctional families where one or both parents have addiction issues and the child is suffering. What do you believe is the best course of action to solve this HUGE issue in society. At the moment we chose to ignore it, with the MASSIVE costs involved in human suffering and the financial costs to society as the children from these families tend to head down the criminal path, or at best suffer life time reductions in their income earning potential due to poor academic performance.

How does gay marriage push parents out of the family environment?

I've never said a same sex couple provides the same environment as a heterosexual couple. I have argued that the environment provided by a same sex couple is likely to be better for the child than if they are growing up in a dysfunctional family.

You wont get any argument from me that both parents are important within the family structure, but what happens when 1 or both of those parents are so caught up in their own problems that their children receive none of the guidance or nurturing you would expect those parents to provide?

Do you see the love that a same sex couple has for each other as the same as a heterosexual couple, or do you think it's wrong / inferior?

Do you think the defacto law should include same sex couples (as it now does) or should it have remained like before with a definition reliant of a couple as a man and woman?

Maybe homosexuality should still be a crime, or still regarded as a mental illness. I'm just trying to work out how anti "gay" you are.

For what reason is gay marriage a detriment to society?

 

[Calliope]

Gay marriage isn't a huge issue for me any more.

Not a huge issue? You have posted 18 times on the issue in four days.::bricks1: Overkill I'd say. You are neglecting your other political proselytizing.

However I have lost interest in such a nonsense issue and I will leave you to tilt at your windmills undisturbed. :goodnight

 

[sydboy007]

Not a huge issue? You have posted 18 times on the issue in four days.::bricks1: Overkill I'd say. You are neglecting your other political proselytizing.

However I have lost interest in such a nonsense issue and I will leave you to tilt at your windmills undisturbed. :goodnight

I will challenge people making claims that children will be somehow harmed by same sex marriage.

As you've rightly highlighted Calliope, people in this thread seem to want to talk about lots of straw man arguments about how same sex marriage will be the fall of western civilisation, yet when pressed they can't / wont actually explain how this will occur.

Multiple comments from you, and not once have you backed up your claims on how same sex marriage would affect children.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

While I am not necessarily against gay marriage, I find it extraordinary that it takes up so much space on a stock forum.

We are at a nexus for a bull market or a retreat to previous highs.

I fail to see how peoples private sexual preferences expressed as a desire for marriage take up so much space on ASF.

gg

 

[Tink]

Syd, I am not anti gay and thats fine that you are all in defacto relationships and that its all been adjusted for you, I have said that at the start of this thread, but trying to change the marraige act is what I am standing up for, for the future generations in society.
The future children in society have a right to grow up believing that marraige is about families enshrined in law, not what you are pushing.

I stand up for mothers and fathers and their children.
THAT makes for a healthy society.

Sorry that I dont stand up for the Gay Lobby and the femanazi that take pleasure in shooting down men, which we have all seen in parliament just recently, and if you think that is healthy for society, you are dreaming.

I dont know where you go, but I see healthy families around here and it annoys me that you constantly put families down.

 

[overhang]

Let them have their gay marriage, the only reason it was defined as between a man and a women is because of the bigoted nature of the times where gays were thought to be unnatural. Marriage has lost all creditability when the divorce rate is near 50% and frankly if you're worried about how children will perceive marriage then this is a far bigger issue than if a same sex couple were to marry.

On the issue of gays raising children I think its incredibly selfish to bring a child into this world with the intention to deny them their biological parents. The gay and lesbian community has spent years telling us to accept them for their natural way and maybe that same community should also accept the way they are and accept that biologically they're not meant to reproduce. I'm not necessarily opposed to adoption as a stable environment for a child is what those children need.

 

[sydboy007]

On the issue of gays raising children I think its incredibly selfish to bring a child into this world with the intention to deny them their biological parents. The gay and lesbian community has spent years telling us to accept them for their natural way and maybe that same community should also accept the way they are and accept that biologically they're not meant to reproduce. I'm not necessarily opposed to adoption as a stable environment for a child is what those children need.

So you would agree that any parent bringing a child into the world without being 100% certain they will not die or divorce or in any way cause the child(ren) to be raised by one parent is selfish? By your argument a heterosexual couple that has to go for fertility treatment should instead just accept their biology?

For a gay couple looking to surrogacy to have children it's:

* a conscious decision

* a large financial commitment

Certainly they would do more planning and talking about the choice to have children than probably what a lot of heterosexual couples do. Purely from the cost perspective I doubt many married gay couples will be able to do this - think $80-100K per child.

A couple I know have had children via surogacy. Their children know their surrogate mother in the USA and communicate with her via skype and email. She's not intimately involved in their lives, but they have an understanding of where they come from. Their children don't seem to be any different to children brought up in a more traditional family structure. The oldest boy is quite outgoing, the younger ones still in their shy phase but once they know you try getting them to slow down . My friends lives pretty much revolve around their children now, as it should.

 

[overhang]

So you would agree that any parent bringing a child into the world without being 100% certain they will not die or divorce or in any way cause the child(ren) to be raised by one parent is selfish? By your argument a heterosexual couple that has to go for fertility treatment should instead just accept their biology?

The two are chalk and cheese Syd as parents don't bring children into the world with the sole intention of dieing or divorcing but gay couples having surrogate children have the full intention of stripping that child of either both or one biological parent. If science can assist a heterosexual couple in fertility then I have no qualm with this as biologically a male and female are meant to conceive however that is not possible for a gay couple.