Gay Marriage

[Value Collector]

You are still not getting it are you. X + y = LIFE ... GAY + GAY = 0 ... and all this from an uneducated "house frau"

I think you are not getting the point. It doesn't matter in the slightest that gays can not breed, gays have always existed and the population has continued to grow.

Straight couples will continue breeding and producing a certain percentage of gay offspring, this gays exist and disserve the same rights and any other Australian.

If a gay couple choose to enter a consenting marriage, they disserve to have this marriage recognised under the law, on equal footing with a straight marriage.

 

[moXJO]

The fact is of course that lot of children suffer setbacks to their upbringing, marriages break up, parents die etc, but just as governments or society in general don't encourage or condone these events I see no reason why governments or society should encourage children to be brought up without a mother or father by in any way endorsing gay parenting as an equal substitute for a loving heterosexual family upbringing.

We should be promoting the "gold standard", not making excuses for anything less.

Yeah Rump, homosexual couples can already adopt. This arguments a little late.

 

[SirRumpole]

Not sure I really like the idea of Govt moulding us to fit into a certain family structure. Harks of 1984.

Of course, that would be totally unlike gays trying to mould heterosexual children to fit into their own "family structure" wouldn't it ?

 

[bellenuit]

What issue are you talking about? You as well as VC have missed the point.

How have we missed the point? You have restated it in the very next post of yours.

are still not getting it are you. X + y = LIFE ... GAY + GAY = 0 ... and all this from an uneducated "house frau"

The point you are making is that gays can't procreate, as if that is somehow significant in relation to gay marriage. Your partner raised the issue of survival of the species in that circumstance and you have been asked to show how that is put at risk by gay marriage.

 

[trainspotter]

How have we missed the point? You have restated it in the very next post of yours.

The point you are making is that gays can't procreate, as if that is somehow significant in relation to gay marriage. Your partner raised the issue of survival of the species in that circumstance and you have been asked to show how that is put at risk by gay marriage.

It is important to gay marriage. What rights do the children have? Does a baby have the right to be adopted by gay people? What happens when they grow up and say "Well I didn't WANT to be adopted by gay parents but I had NO CHOICE now did I?"

This is when it goes LEGAL.

The point my uneducated partner was making out that the law of the jungle is there for a reason. If you read my posts you can clearly see that I am agreeing with the "marriage" of gay people and I want the LEGAL rights to be ironed out first other than just a "ceremony" and Whoopeee we are married.

There has been NIL discussion as to how this is going to effect property, superannuation, children's rights (adopted or by turkey baster I don't care) probate, the list goes on and on.

OK OK OK so we get married and we now have the same "rights" as hetero couples. No biggy. Start bringing children into the debate and the conversation takes on a whole new slant. Another can of worms is opened. Yep there have been studies claiming that it makes no difference if the parents are same sex and equally there has been a series of studies declaring that the children have suffered. Bad parenting or is it that Mummy and Mummy and Daddy and Daddy are not cut out for it.

Anyways if you are happy to live in a world whereby homosexuals and lesbians have the same rights as heterosexuals then be my guest. Knock yourself out. Just because I don't believe it is the right thing to do does not mean my opinion is invalid or bigoted or hate filled or whatever you want to call it it is my opinion.

Oh look there goes a rainbow coloured unicorn ....

 

[Value Collector]

Can kids understand gay marriage, offcourse they can, its simple.

 

[sydboy007]

Of course, that would be totally unlike gays trying to mould heterosexual children to fit into their own "family structure" wouldn't it ?

You mean like religious families and their conversion therapy??

 

[sydboy007]

It is important to gay marriage. What rights do the children have? Does a baby have the right to be adopted by gay people? What happens when they grow up and say "Well I didn't WANT to be adopted by gay parents but I had NO CHOICE now did I?"

This is when it goes LEGAL.

The point my uneducated partner was making out that the law of the jungle is there for a reason. If you read my posts you can clearly see that I am agreeing with the "marriage" of gay people and I want the LEGAL rights to be ironed out first other than just a "ceremony" and Whoopeee we are married.

There has been NIL discussion as to how this is going to effect property, superannuation, children's rights (adopted or by turkey baster I don't care) probate, the list goes on and on.

OK OK OK so we get married and we now have the same "rights" as hetero couples. No biggy. Start bringing children into the debate and the conversation takes on a whole new slant. Another can of worms is opened. Yep there have been studies claiming that it makes no difference if the parents are same sex and equally there has been a series of studies declaring that the children have suffered. Bad parenting or is it that Mummy and Mummy and Daddy and Daddy are not cut out for it.

Anyways if you are happy to live in a world whereby homosexuals and lesbians have the same rights as heterosexuals then be my guest. Knock yourself out. Just because I don't believe it is the right thing to do does not mean my opinion is invalid or bigoted or hate filled or whatever you want to call it it is my opinion.

Let me turn it around and say a child was adopted by parents where one party wasn't really keen but did it to keep the other one happy and never really put much effort into being their for the child. When the child grows up and says "Well I didn't WANT to be adopted by an unloving parent but I had NO CHOICE now did I?"

 

[Value Collector]

It is important to gay marriage. What rights do the children have? Does a baby have the right to be adopted by gay people? What happens when they grow up and say "Well I didn't WANT to be adopted by gay parents but I had NO CHOICE now did I?"

]

The gay marriage issue is not about children. In a lot of places gays can already adopt children, and offcourse there is no way to stop people (especially lesbians) just having their own kids.

The point my uneducated partner was making out that the law of the jungle is there for a reason.

Gays have always existed in the jungle, so it's a moot point.

If you read my posts you can clearly see that I am agreeing with the "marriage" of gay people and I want the LEGAL rights to be ironed out first other than just a "ceremony" and Whoopeee we are married.

There has been NIL discussion as to how this is going to effect property, superannuation, children's rights (adopted or by turkey baster I don't care) probate, the list goes on and on.

Just make it the same as the rights of straight couples, there done. easy. no need to wonder how super will be handled.

OK OK OK so we get married and we now have the same "rights" as hetero couples. No biggy. Start bringing children into the debate and the conversation takes on a whole new slant.

Not really, because they already have those rights, and its a separate topic anyway.

. Just because I don't believe it is the right thing to do does not mean my opinion is invalid or bigoted or hate filled or whatever you want to call it it is my opinion.

Your opinion may or may not be based on bigotry, hence why I am trying to drill down to the nuts and bolts reasoning people have against it.

As it turns out no one is really willing to share the reasoning, except for spewing out loose ideas about it being bad for children (which is a red herring), or it is infringing their religious rights (which it doesn't) or some version of a fear of a slippery slope eg, people will marry dogs next (which is a logical fallacy) or some sort of claim about "we'll if we were all gay, there would be no breeding" (which is just a silly thing to say when discussing gay rights)

 

[sydboy007]

A challenge I have for those arguing against same sex marriage over their fear for child rights is what are you doing about the below? Have you expended as much effort on these issues as you have over same sex marriage, which due to not actually occurring as yet has done 0 harm to children, while the below issues are and will continue to cause much harm.

Child obesity

20% of children and adolescents are overwieght or obese

At the current rate, it is predicted that 65 per cent of young Australians will be overweight or obese by 2020.

youth suicide

Suicides of 15-19 year olds make up nearly 35% of male and 26% of femal deaths.

For 15-29 year olds around 150 males and 435 females per 100,000 population end up in hospital each year due to self harm.

child poverty

ACOSS estimates over 600,000 children live in poverty
1 in 3 children of singple parents live in poverty

back home in the illawarra region something like 15% of children are living in poverty

child abuse and neglect

those who suffer abuse as a child live on average 10-20 years less than those not abused

The most recent national figures from the AIHW indicate that during 2012-13, there were 184,216 Australian children suspected of being harmed or at risk of harm from abuse and/or neglect. 53,666 cases were substantiated.

So if you overarching goal is to protect children, I hope you are working on these issues just as tirelessly as you are against marriage, otherwise I'd have to think you're not really that serious about child rights and protecting them.

 

[SirRumpole]

You mean like religious families and their conversion therapy??

I don't agree with that either, but two wrongs don't make a right.

 

[Value Collector]

The point my uneducated partner was making out that the law of the jungle is there for a reason.

Well you actually said your partner said this.

"You don't see this happening in the wild do you? I mean do you see male lions cohabitating with other male lions and expect the species to survive" (She actually used a lot more expletives and made funny gestures with her pelvis in a thrusting motion

And yes she is dead wrong, we do in fact see male lions engaging in same sex sexual activity and yes we do expect the species to survive, ( as long as we humans don't kill them off)

Her opinion clearly shows she doesn't think homosexuality is natural behaviour, but she is just wrong, simple as that, a certain percentage of people will be born gay, and for them it is completely natural behaviour and it doesn't put the species at risk of extinction.

 

[trainspotter]

As it turns out no one is really willing to share the reasoning, except for spewing out loose ideas about it being bad for children (which is a red herring), or it is infringing their religious rights (which it doesn't) or some version of a fear of a slippery slope eg, people will marry dogs next (which is a logical fallacy) or some sort of claim about "we'll if we were all gay, there would be no breeding" (which is just a silly thing to say when discussing gay rights)

I am more than willing to share my reasoning with you. Not once have I said it was bad for children. Heck it can't be any worse then the lower socio economic breeding population spewing out kids for government grants now can it? Never mentioned religious rights and don't particularly care for organised religion myself. I read somewhere that a woman married a tree and it was the best sex she had ever had .. go figure. Not once have I mentioned that we will all turn gay and not breed. I pointed out that the LAW OF THE JUNGLE is there for a reason ..

"NOW this is the law of the jungle, as old and as true as the sky, And the wolf that shall keep it may prosper, but the wolf that shall break it must die. As the creeper that girdles the tree trunk, the law runneth forward and back; For the strength of the pack is the wolf, and the strength of the wolf is the pack.

My reasoning is that the LEGAL process has not been thought out enough. Fix this area of concern up and then no problem. I outlined a very easy scenario for you to understand that a baby who is adopted by a same sex couple ... where are their rights? Project yourself 20 years in the future and the now young person turns around and says "I did not want to be adopted by gay parents but I had NO CHOICE in the matter".

Pretty simple really and also on another level it just does not sit comfortably with me as a person. I have soul searched as to why and it is my moral compass guiding me on this one. You know the ability to recognise what is right and wrong within yourself as a person. You can GAY yourself to death for all I care and marriage the hell out of whoever you like. Does it sit comfortably with me ... forever NO !

Does it mean I am ANTI gay marriage. Not at all. It does not need my approval as they do not seek mine.

Yes gay people can adopt already blah blah blah. Anyone asked the kids?

So I am running with the pack on this one.

 

[ftw129]

A challenge I have for those arguing against same sex marriage over their fear for child rights is what are you doing about the below?

Clearly this has nothing to do with children. That's just the excuse they are hiding behind.

AGAIN, gay couples already live as families with children. SOMEHOW if the same couples have a ceremony, exchange a couple of rings and are legally recognised, civilasation, as we know it, will end.

They're not fooling anyone but themselves and it's plain to see.

The REAL CHILDREN in all of this are plain to see.

Let them keep digging...






THIS IS ABOUT MARRIAGE. LEAVE CHILDREN OUT OF IT. THEY ARE MUCH SMARTER THAN YOU GIVE THEM CREDIT FOR AND WILL FIGURE OUT YOUR BS QUICKER THAN YOU DO.

 

[trainspotter]

Well you actually said your partner said this.
)

And yes she is dead wrong, we do in fact see male lions engaging in sexual activity and yes we do expect the species to survive, ( as long as we humans don't kill them off)

Her opinion clearly shows she doesn't think homosexuality is natural behaviour, but she is just wrong, simple as that.

Put the crack pipe down VC She was pointing out that if two male lions root each other then the species will not survive as in neither of them has a womb. Pretty simple really

There was no mention that she doesn't think homosexuality is natural behaviour in any way. This is your perception of how you translate what was written. Egg + sperm = LIFE ... geddit yet

 

[Value Collector]

She was pointing out that if two male lions root each other then the species will not survive as in neither of them has a womb. Pretty simple really

:

That's assuming that those two gay lions are the last lions on the planet. Which is not the case for either humans or lions.

So the fact that a certain percentage of the lion population and the human population are gay is no danger to the species.

Gay Marriage is not a threat to the survival of the species and it is not an unnatural thing, either way your partner is still wrong.

Pretty simple really

There was no mention that she doesn't think homosexuality is natural behaviour in any way

I think that's what she meant when she said "You don't see this happening in the wild do you"

I think she was completely unaware that you do see it in the wild, in around 8% of male lions.

 

[Value Collector]

My reasoning is that the LEGAL process has not been thought out enough. Fix this area of concern up and then no problem. I outlined a very easy scenario for you to understand that a baby who is adopted by a same sex couple ... where are their rights? Project yourself 20 years in the future and the now young person turns around and says "I did not want to be adopted by gay parents but I had NO CHOICE in the matter".

.

well again this is a red herring, for two reasons.

1, Gay Marriage is not the same topic as gay adoption.

2, No baby (or birth child) gets to choose its parents anyway.

 

[pixel]

That's assuming that those two gay lions are the last lions on the planet. Which is not the case for either humans or lions.
So the fact that a certain percentage of the lion population and the human population are gay is no danger to the species.

Gay Marriage is not a threat to the survival of the species and it is not an unnatural thing, either way your partner is still wrong.

[...]

I think that's what she meant when she said "You don't see this happening in the wild do you"

I think she was completely unaware that you do see it in the wild, in around 8% of male lions.

You also see cows at it in every paddock, yet we have yet to see a bovine deity smiting them.

As regards naming conventions, I can't see the difference it makes to a married heterosexual couple what another couple calls their relationship. If my partner and I live in a happy marriage, with or without kids, it doesn't affect us one iota if Adam and Steve or Edna and Eve are living together and calling theirs a happy marriage as well. If it makes them happy, let them also live happily married. Doesn't diminish what I feel about my partner.

What I do object to however, is the claim by a bigoted minority, who claims a god-given right to the exclusive use of the label "marriage" and accuses me of "living in sin" if my partner and I haven't had one of their Shamans utter ancient mumbo-jumbo over us.

 

[trainspotter]

That's assuming that those two gay lions are the last lions on the planet. Which is not the case for either humans or lions.

So the fact that a certain percentage of the lion population and the human population are gay is no danger to the species.

Gay Marriage is not a threat to the survival of the species and it is not an unnatural thing, either way your partner is still wrong.

Pretty simple really

I think that's what she meant when she said "You don't see this happening in the wild do you"

I think she was completely unaware that you do see it in the wild, in around 8% of male lions.

What she was referring to is the procreation of life. Please don't twist it into something which it is not to further your own defence for gay marriage.

You asked for my reasoning and I wrote as to WHY it does not sit comfortably with me.

By all means keep championing your cause til you are blue in the face but it will not change my mind.

As for the red herring you might want to do a bit more research ...

Still, they described emotional hardships that came from lacking a mom or a dad. To give a few examples: they feel disconnected from the gender cues of people around them, feel intermittent anger at their “parents” for having deprived them of one biological parent (or, in some cases, both biological parents), wish they had had a role model of the opposite sex, and feel shame or guilt for resenting their loving parents for forcing them into a lifelong situation lacking a parent of one sex.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinio...-parents-support-gay-marriage-i-should-know-i

Written by a person who had a same sex parental upbringing no less

 

[luutzu]

The fact is of course that lot of children suffer setbacks to their upbringing, marriages break up, parents die etc, but just as governments or society in general don't encourage or condone these events I see no reason why governments or society should encourage children to be brought up without a mother or father by in any way endorsing gay parenting as an equal substitute for a loving heterosexual family upbringing.

We should be promoting the "gold standard", not making excuses for anything less.

If we were to go for gold, I don't believe it will be going after homosexual and their parenting habits.

Tisme did show some studies that show correlation between child's happiness and parents sexual orientation right? I haven't read the study but in general, correlation do not equal causation.

Back to gold standard... there are bad parents, bad people, selfish mothers and fathers; there are parents who work too much and neglect that family balance; there are drunk and drug abusing parents; broke and poor parents; parents who are too rich and ruining their kids with great wealth and inheritance...

Such factors would be more relevant than sexuality alone. And with those factors, there's no differentiating between straight or gay.