Gay Marriage

[Value Collector]

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/opinion...-should-know-i

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

Still a red herring.

Because gay marriage is not the same as gay adoption.

It's a separate topic and a separate debate.

What she was referring to is the procreation of life.

Which is irrelevant when discussing the rights of same sex couples to marry, and a silly point to bring up when asked about your position on gay marriage.

I think it is you that's twisting what she said, it would be obvious to every one here that the only reason she would bring up such a silly statement is to try and say that gay relationships were some how unnatural and don't exist in the wild, you are now trying to say that's not what she was saying because her example has be shown to be false.

You say you have no problem with gay couples you just are not wanting to support gay adoption, so why not just support gay marriage and not gay adoption?

 

[luutzu]

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.

Some might need a Gold or Platinum Plaque with VIP Marriage on theirs while "the gays" and others get the normal recyled paper with no embossing.

But there's optimism that gay marriage will happen in Australia - there's just too much money that comes with it.

There's the wedding, the photographers, some homosexual would like religious ceremonies, then there's the trusts, the wills, the divorce and legal fights... that and yea, it's morally the right thing too.

 

[Knobby22]

According to the source below 3.8% of US citizens are gay.
For Australia it is only 1.2%, Britain 1.5%, Canada 1%.

https://carm.org/percent-population-homosexual

Is the difference due to societal pressures? Or pollution? It is well known that the US Great Lakes had high levels of oestrogen mimickers type pollution and that has caused problems with fish breeding.

I, like most people, don't really care if it makes some homosexuals feel better to go through a marriage ceremony.
I don't think we should as taxpayers make it a right to pay for them to have kids. They can have kids but they should pay for it themselves. It's not my fault that nature doesn't work that way.

 

[ftw129]

I don't think we should as taxpayers make it a right to pay for them to have kids. They can have kids but they should pay for it themselves. It's not my fault that nature doesn't work that way.

 

[sydboy007]

According to the source below 3.8% of US citizens are gay.
For Australia it is only 1.2%, Britain 1.5%, Canada 1%.

https://carm.org/percent-population-homosexual

Is the difference due to societal pressures? Or pollution? It is well known that the US Great Lakes had high levels of oestrogen mimickers type pollution and that has caused problems with fish breeding.

I, like most people, don't really care if it makes some homosexuals feel better to go through a marriage ceremony.
I don't think we should as taxpayers make it a right to pay for them to have kids. They can have kids but they should pay for it themselves. It's not my fault that nature doesn't work that way.

Is it fair that tax payers spend quite a bit on funding IVF for heterosexual couples. By your logic It's not my fault that nature didn't allow them to have a child the natural way.

 

[SirRumpole]

Is it fair that tax payers spend quite a bit on funding IVF for heterosexual couples. By your logic It's not my fault that nature didn't allow them to have a child the natural way.

No its not. I would be quite happy to see IVF disappear altogether. Telling children that they were hatched out of a tube instead of by a mutual act of love must be devastating to their self esteem, plus the fact that a lot of them spend years searching for their natural parents which shows how strong the DNA bonding is. Making them go through that process that the rest of us take for granted is akin to child abuse.

 

[Logique]

View attachment 63254

The only distraction is from Bill Shorten's performance, or lack of it, as Labor leader.

We can expect gay and lesbian marriage to be trotted out whenever Bill is under pressure, which will be often. If the issue is causing division in the Liberal party, perfect!

I'll say this for the sake of balance. In the real world, there are lots of disfunctional and abusive hetero marriages, where the kids are the victims. Given the alternative of two loving gay or lesbian parents, I'm sure these kids would jump at the chance. So we mustn't deal in absolutes here.

Changing the definition of marriage under the Marriage Act isn't the way forward. The motives of most in the lobby are pure and honourable. But a scheming minority have a hidden agenda, and I don't see any plan to self-regulate this.

 

[Value Collector]

No its not. I would be quite happy to see IVF disappear altogether. Telling children that they were hatched out of a tube instead of by a mutual act of love must be devastating to their self esteem, plus the fact that a lot of them spend years searching for their natural parents which shows how strong the DNA bonding is. Making them go through that process that the rest of us take for granted is akin to child abuse.

What about IVF where no doner sperm or egg is used?

 

[SirRumpole]

Given the alternative of two loving gay or lesbian parents, I'm sure these kids would jump at the chance. So we mustn't deal in absolutes here.

No we mustn't because not all gays or lesbians are loving parents

http://www.smh.com.au/national/couple-offered-son-to-paedophiles-20130630-2p5eg.html

 

[ftw129]

 

[SirRumpole]

What about IVF where no doner sperm or egg is used?

If a child cannot identify both their natural parents the same comment applies.

 

[Value Collector]

But a scheming minority have a hidden agenda, and I don't see any plan to self-regulate this.

That's a claim that the people against gay marriage keep trotting out, however none of them are willing to say what it is.

are you going to Man up and say what this "Hidden Agenda" is?

Or is it just another thing you guys throw out there to cast doubt? but really there is no meat there.

 

[Value Collector]

If a child cannot identify both their natural parents the same comment applies.

I am talking about where Ivf is used to help couples conseive and they use the couples own egg and sperm, I believe this is the majority of IVF cases.

Eg mr and mrs rumpole are having trouble getting pregnant, the doctors take a some sperm from Mr Rumpole and some eggs from Mrs Rumpole, fertilise the eggs, and plant them back into Mrs Rumpole.

Are you against IVF in this situation?

 

[trainspotter]

Still a red herring.

Because gay marriage is not the same as gay adoption.

It's a separate topic and a separate debate.

Which is irrelevant when discussing the rights of same sex couples to marry, and a silly point to bring up when asked about your position on gay marriage.

I think it is you that's twisting what she said, it would be obvious to every one here that the only reason she would bring up such a silly statement is to try and say that gay relationships were some how unnatural and don't exist in the wild, you are now trying to say that's not what she was saying because her example has be shown to be false.

You say you have no problem with gay couples you just are not wanting to support gay adoption, so why not just support gay marriage and not gay adoption?

so when I wrote this you just chose to ignore it?

I posted how many men and women affiniare themselves as being in the minority ... I am all for their rights to be the same as currently enjoyed under the word "marriage" ... my anger statement is towards the legislation involved with "defacto" relationships. Man and woman AOK. Man and man NOT AOK and vici versa. Just give "them" the same legal rights and this is a non sequitur.

You just keep on rolling along there VC and chucking out the silly statements and may your gay right activists marriage buddies enjoy their nuptials.

I posted up a link where a child was raised by lesbians ...

But I am here to say no, having a mom and a dad is a precious value in its own right and not something that can be overridden, even if a gay couple has lots of money, can send a kid to the best schools, and raises the kid to be an Eagle Scout.

It’s disturbingly classist and elitist for gay men to think they can love their children unreservedly after treating their surrogate mother like an incubator, or for lesbians to think they can love their children unconditionally after treating their sperm-donor father like a tube of toothpaste.

It’s also racist and condescending for same-sex couples to think they can strong-arm adoption centers into giving them orphans by wielding financial or political clout. An orphan in Asia or in an American inner city has been entrusted to adoption authorities to make the best decision for the child’s life, not to meet a market demand for same-sex couples wanting children. Whatever trauma caused them to be orphans shouldn’t be compounded with the stress of being adopted into a same-sex partnership

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

But what would he know afterall he was raised by lesbians.

The two go hand in hand. Gay marriage and gay adoption. But you are more interested in being "right" and wanting to shout down anyone who has an opinion other than yours. That is your "right" ... it is my "right" to disagree with you.

As for my partner giving an example of two lions procreating ... well you know what is best for us all and we all should just toe the line now shouldn't we

Just completely ignore billions of years of evolution.

 

[ftw129]

so when I wrote this you just chose to ignore it?



You just keep on rolling along there VC and chucking out the silly statements and may your gay right activists marriage buddies enjoy their nuptials.

I posted up a link where a child was raised by lesbians ...



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

But what would he know afterall he was raised by lesbians.

The two go hand in hand. Gay marriage and gay adoption. But you are more interested in being "right" and wanting to shout down anyone who has an opinion other than yours. That is your "right" ... it is my "right" to disagree with you.

As for my partner giving an example of two lions procreating ... well you know what is best for us all and we all should just toe the line now shouldn't we

Just completely ignore billions of years of evolution.

 

[Value Collector]

Just completely ignore billions of years of evolution.

Billions of years of evolution have lead us to the point where we have a certain percentage of the population that is gay, and we are not alone, the great apes and other mammals also.

How am I ignoring evolution? I think you may have an overly simplistic view of Evolution of species.

Evolution doesn't just select the strongest individuals, in animals that live in social groups there is group selection, generally a social group of a species share a lot of the same DNA, given that they are probably all third or fourth cousins at the most.

If a member of the group increases the over all strength of the group, he is adding to the evolutionary spread of his genes even if he ends up with no offspring, becuase his genes are carried by his cousins, whom he has help increase the survival rates off.

Eg. A mere cat that is killed fighting off a snake that was going to eat his cousins has still assisted with the spread of his DNA even though he didn't copulate, because his cousins or brothers and sisters carry the same genes as him.

So even though gay members of the group breed less frequently, they can still be ensuring their genes are maintained in the pool by increasing the survival rate of their relations.

 

[SirRumpole]

I am talking about where Ivf is used to help couples conseive and they use the couples own egg and sperm, I believe this is the majority of IVF cases.

Eg mr and mrs rumpole are having trouble getting pregnant, the doctors take a some sperm from Mr Rumpole and some eggs from Mrs Rumpole, fertilise the eggs, and plant them back into Mrs Rumpole.

Are you against IVF in this situation?

There is still a MR Rumpole and MRS Rumpole, so how does this work for gays ?

 

[trainspotter]

Billions of years of evolution have lead us to the point where we have a certain percentage of the population that is gay, and we are not alone, the great apes and other mammals also.

How am I ignoring evolution? I think you may have an overly simplistic view of Evolution of species.

Flummoxed is the only word I can use to describe this missive. Until we as a human species have both male and female reproductive organs I am pretty sure it takes a set of gonads and an ovary to create an embryo.

But hey let's all get our gayness happening and get married.

Worked for this guy brilliantly ...

Same-sex marriage would pose no problems for me if it were simply about couples being together. As a bisexual I get that. But unfortunately the LGBT movement decided that its validation by others requires a redefinition of “marriage” to include same-sex partnerships. So here we are, stuck having to encourage problematic lives for children in order to affirm same-sex couples the way the movement demands.

That’s why I am for civil unions but not for redefining marriage. But I suppose I don’t count””I am no doctor, judge, or television commentator, just a kid who had to clean up the mess left behind by the sexual revolution.

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

Robert Oscar Lopez, PhD, is the author of Johnson Park and editor of the website English Manif: A Franco-American Flashpoint on Gay Rights Debates. He is launching CREFA, or Children's Rights and Ethical Family Alternatives, a new project to discuss the ethics of LGBT family-building, with Doug Mainwaring.

 

[trainspotter]

So even though gay members of the group breed less frequently, they can still be ensuring their genes are maintained in the pool by increasing the survival rate of their relations.

Nail, head , hammer. So their not really gay as such ... more bisexual then ?

 

[moXJO]

Robert Oscar Lopez, PhD, is the author of Johnson Park and editor of the website English Manif: A Franco-American Flashpoint on Gay Rights Debates. He is launching CREFA, or Children's Rights and Ethical Family Alternatives, a new project to discuss the ethics of LGBT family-building, with Doug Mainwaring.

Yeah, the guy who made his niche in aiming lectures for$ to the right wing of the US. Also knocked out a couple of books.
And the difference between single mums who don't know the father, or single women adopting is?