Gay Marriage

[trainspotter]

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?

He has written a book and made his niche in aiming lectures for$ to the right wing of the US. Oh yeah also was raised by two lesbians and has a PhD. Kinda ticks the boxes as someone who would know what he is talking about.

The difference would be that it would not be confusing on Fathers Day!

 

[Value Collector]

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

I was just interested in finding out your position on IVF in general, whether you are ok with it on the terms that the biological parents are the ones that end up raising the child. Or whether you are still against it even in that situation for some reason.

Offcourse it also leads to a question I have asked you before.

Would you be against two lesbians that used IVF if the egg was fertilised by taking the DNA from another egg, rather than from a sperm.

so the end result is that the child has two women as biological parents.

I mean, that gets around your main objection which you say is that you won't kids to have biological parents.

It's just a thought experiment to find out if there is any other objections.

 

[sydboy007]

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.

While Abbott will increase the terror australis alert any time he feels pressured to actually do something about the declining economy.

So what is your way forward?

Who are the scheming minority. What is their hidden agenda?

 

[luutzu]

While Abbott will increase the terror australis alert any time he feels pressured to actually do something about the declining economy.

So what is your way forward?

Who are the scheming minority. What is their hidden agenda?

Upon meeting a ship load of American sailors, Tony Abbott remark what a "comforting presence" they are. Pretty gay I'd say.

Alright, that's not fair. But it is somewhat insulting to Australian armed services though: Thank god you yanks are here, I feel much safer now.

 

[Value Collector]

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.

Yes, but gay's are normally produced by straight parents, it doesn't rely on gay's breeding to keep gay's in the evolutionary game.

I can see by your simplistic view of evolution you think that if a gay man dies without breeding, then it is reducing the amount of genes that lead to his creation, so evolution should be clearing out gay's over time, this May be true if he was born gay due to a mutation in his genes.

However, if a gene mutation happened in a female, causing her to produce offspring that had a 1% chance of being gay, then she could have 5 kids none of whom are gay, but they will be carrying a gene that means 1% of their kids would be gay. Those 5 kids could have 25 children who are all straight but still carrying the gene that means they have a 1% chance of producing a gay child.

it might be a number of generations before a gay child actually pops up, and by then the gene for producing them has spread quite widely among the social group. And when a gay offspring does pop up, it is not going to be a net negative on the survival of the group, he or she may stay around their brothers and sisters helping the tribe find food, protecting them etc and helping ensure the gene that is now spread thought the social group continues to survive.

The net affect is there will be more carers and resource producers ensuring the survival of the next generation who are carrying the gene that allows the production of gay's.

It could also be a net plus, because the evolutionary game isn't always won by the group that produces the most offspring, I mean look at the starving kids in Africa, it could be very helpful to a groups survival to have a few extra men or women around with no kids of their own to feed, to help feed the group. Simple producing a large number of kids doesn't help, you have to be able to feed them.

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

Why? Don't you think through the last few thousand years totally gay people have bred, I mean I am sure their were lesbians that were raped or were in forced marriages, and to this day we have gay's with wives and kids to scared to come out of the closet.

Hence why I said gay's have bred "less frequently", but yes you are right there is also bi sexuals etc.

 

[SirRumpole]

It's just a thought experiment to find out if there is any other objections.

Yes, there are other objections as I've said before. Heterosexual children (in all probability) will be raised in a homosexual environment. In case you haven't noticed, the population is about 95% heterosexual and children need the influence of both a mother and a father to learn how to get on in the real world, not some dream world their parents are trying to create for themselves.

If you have homosexual parents trying to raise a heterosexual child, that sets the child up for years of confusion and bewilderment as to why they are different from their parents and why their parents aren't the same as their friend's parents.

They have purposely been placed on the fringes of society and used in some form of social engineering experiment and in my opinion this is psychological child abuse.

 

[ftw129]

(This Red Herring represents the fallacy with which people opposing same sex marriage are using to hide their real feelings about why they oppose same sex marriage. They hide behind the argument of gay parenting and the effects this will have on future generations. Gay couples can already have children and this is a fair BUT separate issue altogether. Ask most gay couples and they have no intention of ever having children. HOWEVER, the MAIN issue that is being discussed here which is about to change history in our country, is same sex couples having legally recognized marriages. Up to this point, there has not been a fair and reasonable argument as to why a marriage between two loving adults, of the same sex, should not be legal. The U.S.A (among many other countries) has used it’s resources to decide allowing same sex marriages is the right thing to do and the current outdated and discriminatory status quo, is unlawful and goes against their own constitution.)






One need only to look within, not without, and ask “What would love do now?”…

#lovewins

 

[trainspotter]

Yes, but gay's are normally produced by straight parents, it doesn't rely on gay's breeding to keep gay's in the evolutionary game.

I can see by your simplistic view of evolution you think that if a gay man dies without breeding, then it is reducing the amount of genes that lead to his creation, so evolution should be clearing out gay's over time, this May be true if he was born gay due to a mutation in his genes.

However, if a gene mutation happened in a female, causing her to produce offspring that had a 1% chance of being gay, then she could have 5 kids none of whom are gay, but they will be carrying a gene that means 1% of their kids would be gay. Those 5 kids could have 25 children who are all straight but still carrying the gene that means they have a 1% chance of producing a gay child.

it might be a number of generations before a gay child actually pops up, and by then the gene for producing them has spread quite widely among the social group. And when a gay offspring does pop up, it is not going to be a net negative on the survival of the group, he or she may stay around their brothers and sisters helping the tribe find food, protecting them etc and helping ensure the gene that is now spread thought the social group continues to survive.

The net affect is there will be more carers and resource producers ensuring the survival of the next generation who are carrying the gene that allows the production of gay's.

It could also be a net plus, because the evolutionary game isn't always won by the group that produces the most offspring, I mean look at the starving kids in Africa, it could be very helpful to a groups survival to have a few extra men or women around with no kids of their own to feed, to help feed the group. Simple producing a large number of kids doesn't help, you have to be able to feed them.

Why? Don't you think through the last few thousand years totally gay people have bred, I mean I am sure their were lesbians that were raped or were in forced marriages, and to this day we have gay's with wives and kids to scared to come out of the closet.

Hence why I said gay's have bred "less frequently", but yes you are right there is also bi sexuals etc.

And around we go (my bolds) Man and woman produced ..... end of dicsussion.

Please do not tell me how I think and that I have simplistic views. You are loading me up with words I have not typed nor even thought. You can call it what you will but PULLLLEEEZZE leave me out of fitting me up with your thoughts on how I should think. It does become irksome after a while.

Gay gene ... what gay gene ?

After all, it’s not 1996 anymore. In 2014, the “gay gene” simply doesn’t matter. The science behind it is narrow and inconclusive. Its rhetorical potential—if it ever had any—has been thoroughly exhausted. And, at this point, continuing to pursue a genetic explanation for homosexuality could more harm than it does good. It doesn’t matter whether or not you were “born this way,” what matters is being accepted the way you are, however you got there.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/11/20/the-problematic-hunt-for-a-gay-gene.html

Could be environmental factors, could be conditioning, could be the possibility that variations in hormone levels in the womb or even the brain size is a factor.

Indeed, as it has always been, the magic bullet for the acceptance of homosexuality seems to be the act of knowing an actual gay or lesbian person, not reading a study that suggests the possibility of a shared genetic marker on the Xq28 region of the X chromosome.

Man and man = adoption
Woman and woman = adoption
Man and woman = LIFE

Now forget all the test tubes and technologies and a gay man copulates with a donor womb ad infinitum etc ... is this a true statement?

 

[trainspotter]

FTW129 FRO with the red herring Sh1te

 

[sydboy007]

Yes, there are other objections as I've said before. Heterosexual children (in all probability) will be raised in a homosexual environment. In case you haven't noticed, the population is about 95% heterosexual and children need the influence of both a mother and a father to learn how to get on in the real world, not some dream world their parents are trying to create for themselves.

If you have homosexual parents trying to raise a heterosexual child, that sets the child up for years of confusion and bewilderment as to why they are different from their parents and why their parents aren't the same as their friend's parents.

They have purposely been placed on the fringes of society and used in some form of social engineering experiment and in my opinion this is psychological child abuse.

So you're against IVF because a child may have mental distress from not knowing their biological parents.

What then for an adopted child where the biological parents do not wish to have any form of contact with the child? Is it then abort if not too late term, or force the parents to take responsibility for the child and raise it?

 

[SirRumpole]

(This Red Herring represents the fallacy with which people opposing same sex marriage are using to hide their real feelings about why they oppose same sex marriage. They hide behind the argument of gay parenting and the effects this will have on future generations. Gay couples can already have children and this is a fair BUT separate issue altogether. Ask most gay couples and they have no intention of ever having children. HOWEVER, the MAIN issue that is being discussed here which is about to change history in our country, is same sex couples having legally recognized marriages. Up to this point, there has not been a fair and reasonable argument as to why a marriage between two loving adults, of the same sex, should not be legal. The U.S.A (among many other countries) has used it’s resources to decide allowing same sex marriages is the right thing to do and the current outdated and discriminatory status quo, is unlawful and goes against their own constitution.)

I've already said I don't care who marries who as long as gays don't try to do something for which they are not equipped, and that's their main problem, they don't want to admit that straights may have the edge over them in having and raising children.

If they want to sign a stat dec stating that they will never try to raise children, that would be fine if as you say the vast majority of them are not interested in children.

 

[sydboy007]

Man and man = adoption
Woman and woman = adoption
Man and woman = LIFE

Now forget all the test tubes and technologies and a gay man copulates with a donor womb ad infinitum etc ... is this a true statement?

Still not quite sure how this revolves around gay marriage. Plenty of childless couples, due to either choice or biology, so why does it matter that some people who already are unlikely to procreate can now use the term marriage to describe their partnership?

 

[SirRumpole]

So you're against IVF because a child may have mental distress from not knowing their biological parents.

What then for an adopted child where the biological parents do not wish to have any form of contact with the child? Is it then abort if not too late term, or force the parents to take responsibility for the child and raise it?

Talk about red herrings. IVF has nothing to do with adoption, so why confuse the issue ?

Again you are trying to say "here is one deficiency, so I'll introduce another deficiency to excuse the first deficiency".

Each situation is separate and should be treated as such.

 

[ftw129]

I've already said I don't care who marries who as long as gays don't try to do something for which they are not equipped, and that's their main problem, they don't want to admit that straights may have the edge over them in having and raising children.

If they want to sign a stat dec stating that they will never try to raise children, that would be fine if as you say the vast majority of them are not interested in children.

(This Red Herring represents the fallacy with which people opposing same sex marriage are using to hide their real feelings about why they oppose same sex marriage. They hide behind the argument of gay parenting and the effects this will have on future generations. Gay couples can already have children and this is a fair BUT separate issue altogether. Ask most gay couples and they have no intention of ever having children. HOWEVER, the MAIN issue that is being discussed here which is about to change history in our country, is same sex couples having legally recognized marriages. Up to this point, there has not been a fair and reasonable argument to suggest that marriage equality, is a detriment to society. The U.S.A (among many other countries) has used it’s resources to decide allowing same sex marriages is the right thing to do….
One need only to look within, not without, and ask “What would love do now?”…)

#lovewins

Read what you wrote and have a good think about it... Your childish comment against same sex parenting is irrelevant here...Sir.

Go open up a "Gay Parenting" thread.

 

[sydboy007]

Talk about red herrings. IVF has nothing to do with adoption, so why confuse the issue ?

Again you are trying to say "here is one deficiency, so I'll introduce another deficiency to excuse the first deficiency".

Each situation is separate and should be treated as such.

I suppose IVF has nothing to do with gay marriage either.

But the issue you highlight in terms of gays using IVF, also occurs when a child is placed with another family via adoption. In both cases the child has no idea who their biological parents are.

So if that is a reason to block gays from using IVF, then surely it is also a valid argument against adoption? Surely if the harm to the child is the same, then blocking 1 cause but allowing other seems to be a bit unfair to the child.

 

[ftw129]

FTW129 FRO with the red herring Sh1te

You keep bringing up The Herring... you will keep seeing The Herring.

Go open up the relevant thread. You're not on topic in here.

 

[moXJO]

He has written a book and made his niche in aiming lectures for$ to the right wing of the US. Oh yeah also was raised by two lesbians and has a PhD. Kinda ticks the boxes as someone who would know what he is talking about.

The difference would be that it would not be confusing on Fathers Day!

Has a PhD, well his parents obviously did a bad job
I'll raise your one complaining son of honey pot, with a billion complaining hetro couple kids of ****tey parenting.

 

[SirRumpole]

I suppose IVF has nothing to do with gay marriage either.

But the issue you highlight in terms of gays using IVF, also occurs when a child is placed with another family via adoption. In both cases the child has no idea who their biological parents are.

So if that is a reason to block gays from using IVF, then surely it is also a valid argument against adoption? Surely if the harm to the child is the same, then blocking 1 cause but allowing other seems to be a bit unfair to the child.

The essential difference between adoption and IVF is with adoption a child has been produced by whatever means who needs to be looked after, with IVF the argument is whether a child should be created in the first place where they are subject to deficiencies compared to naturally born children.

 

[sydboy007]

The essential difference between adoption and IVF is with adoption a child has been produced by whatever means who needs to be looked after, with IVF the argument is whether a child should be created in the first place where they are subject to deficiencies compared to naturally born children.

Don't see the distinction when you argument is about child welfare.

But anyhoo, it's not relevant to the debate about gay marriage.

 

[Tisme]

Marketing 101 ...... indoctrinate the children of the next generation

http://www.christianpost.com/news/p...ay-marriage-book-to-third-grade-class-140743/