Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Gay Marriage

Jump to new
SirRumpole said:
Well, you say it's better if gays don't breed but instead look after their relatives and help them to "survive" ?

I assume that means you are in favour of gays not having families of their own that case, because otherwise you would destroy your own argument ?
Click to expand...

My comments were simply explaining how a gene that creates gays could survive and potentially increase the survival rate of the population that Carries it, it's an explanation for how we got here, not how we should live.

But in a hypothetical tribe, that contained a gay couple, if the gay couple stepped in to raise a child after its parents died, that would increase the survival rate of the tribe, so yes there is evolutionary support for allowing gays to adopted.
 
SirRumpole said:
She's got more credibility than you or me because she has lived the experience, and there are others like her willing to speak out as previously posted on this thread.
Click to expand...

If it goes to referendum there will be plenty of the silent majority willing to speak out too as the arguments ratchet up. You bet the sympathisers try everything from pouting, allegorising black southern americans, to banners demanding "homophobes" be excluded from the mix. :D

The millenium gen doesn't care so they will vote yes just to get the annoyance away from their tri lattes.
 
SirRumpole said:
She's got more credibility than you or me because she has lived the experience, and there are others like her willing to speak out as previously posted on this thread.
Click to expand...

Actually she hasn't. Her lesbian parents aren't married, so she has no experience of being raised in a married lesbian relationship. What she talked about was that in her opinion children need to be brought up within a heterosexual marriage structure.

Again, the issue is gay marriage, not gay adoption. Specifically in her case, the issue wasn't even gay adoption but she addressed her own circumstances as if that were the case. What exactly were the choices:

1. She lives with the heterosexual father (and his new female partner)
2. She is adopted out to another couple.
3. She lives with her mother who is in an unmarried relationship with another lesbian
4. She lives with her mother who is in a married (if legalised) relationship with another lesbian.
5. She lives with her mother who abstains from having a relationship with another lesbian.

I fail to see where she addresses which of these would have been a better outcome and why.
 
SirRumpole said:
I wasn't suggesting that I favour aborting children on the basis of any criteria, just stating what I think will happen in the future if tests for predisposition towards homosexuality are developed.

You yourself have stated that you would not have chosen to be born gay, I think parents will take it on themselves not to have gay children for the same reasons that you decided that being gay would not have been your choice.

That's the problem when society approves of abortion on demand, the reasons for the abortion become irrelevant. The mother either wants the baby or she does not. it's HER choice right ?

Certainly up to now people accept the odds of having a gay child and should love & care for them as much as any other child, but in the future if people don't have to play the odds but can decide them, what will they do ?
Click to expand...

I was born when homosexuality was still a crime in every state of Australia. I was born in a time when pooftah bashing was considered OK by society.

So yes, I'd preferred to have not gone through that. At least I'm not facing being thrown off a building like some of those who've been captured by IS.

The greater acceptance today means I'd not have the same reservations to growing up gay. It's not like I'm ashamed of who I am.

It's not that I had an issue with it, but that the society I grew up in did.

As for your idea of eugenics creating the master race, just imagine if that capability had been around in your generation. Parents aborting any left handed child so they would have to tie their arm and force them to use the appropriate right hand.
 
sydboy007 said:
As for your idea of eugenics creating the master race, just imagine if that capability had been around in your generation. Parents aborting any left handed child so they would have to tie their arm and force them to use the appropriate right hand.
Click to expand...

It's not MY idea as I said, but can you deny it would happen, right or wrong ? It's a potential future issue. Do you want to ban abortion on demand, or should we demand that women have a "good" reason to have an abortion ? If you go for the latter then you run up against the "pro choice" lobby, and if you want to argue with them, good luck to you.
 
I was going to post that too, Rumpole, I couldn't believe that it was on the ABC.
I agree with you

Transcripts here -
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2015/s4292362.htm

This is what stood out for me, as we have said before.

I got into this discussion primarily because what I heard from the gay lobby was that children don't care who's raising them, right? That children are just fine if it's two men or two women. And the reality is that anybody that's talked to a child who has lost a parent, whether through divorce, abandonment, third-party reproduction or death, kids absolutely care. Family structure matters to children. And so I heard the LBGT lobby saying it doesn't care - they don't care and I don't think that that's reality.

How can you say, children don't care when we have seen so many children go in search for their parents.
 
bellenuit said:
Actually she hasn't. Her lesbian parents aren't married, so she has no experience of being raised in a married lesbian relationship. What she talked about was that in her opinion children need to be brought up within a heterosexual marriage structure.

Again, the issue is gay marriage, not gay adoption. Specifically in her case, the issue wasn't even gay adoption but she addressed her own circumstances as if that were the case. What exactly were the choices:

1. She lives with the heterosexual father (and his new female partner)
2. She is adopted out to another couple.
3. She lives with her mother who is in an unmarried relationship with another lesbian
4. She lives with her mother who is in a married (if legalised) relationship with another lesbian.
5. She lives with her mother who abstains from having a relationship with another lesbian.

I fail to see where she addresses which of these would have been a better outcome and why.
Click to expand...

She was simply saying that children need a mother and a father, and I don't see how we can say she's wrong because she had an experience that most of us have not.
 
SirRumpole said:
She was simply saying that children need a mother and a father, and I don't see how we can say she's wrong because she had an experience that most of us have not.
Click to expand...

I didn't say she was wrong. I said she didn't explain why gay marriage was wrong, a completely different issue. That is the topic under discussion.
 
SirRumpole said:
She was simply saying that children need a mother and a father, and I don't see how we can say she's wrong because she had an experience that most of us have not.
Click to expand...

I don't understand her position. From what I listened to, she was never going to have a father to raise her, so what is her point, again?

The anti-gay marriage stalwarts conveniently avoid the fact that children of single mothers do not have a father figure in their upbringing. Now if the anti-gay marriage crew were to say that children born to single mothers must be taken by the state and given out to heterosexual couples, then their argument would hold water.

I really could not care less, however, I do have an ethic of maintaining a fair go for all (just in case I am on the end of a raw deal and no one else gives a F).

When gay marriage is legalised I think all single mothers should be given a bottle of Dom Perignon for helping the cause.
 
Macquack said:
The anti-gay marriage stalwarts conveniently avoid the fact that children of single mothers do not have a father figure in their upbringing.
Click to expand...

That's obviously not the case in most cases where parents have separated. The kids know who their father is, he most likely has access rights, sees the kids regularly and has a role in their upbringing. The male / female balance is still there, it's just less than it would be where the parents are together.
 
SirRumpole said:
That's obviously not the case in most cases where parents have separated. The kids know who their father is, he most likely has access rights, sees the kids regularly and has a role in their upbringing. The male / female balance is still there, it's just less than it would be where the parents are together.
Click to expand...

Gay marriage is irrelevant to what you have just said.

Are you talking about banning gay couples from adoption?
 
SirRumpole said:
I think adoption agencies should be able to give preference to heterosexual couples without being sued for discrimination.
Click to expand...

Legally they're required too. Unless one partner in a gay couple is a biological parent they can't adopt.

You continue to argue against something that is unrelated to the topic. Why not start the I don't support gay parents thread to continue your discussion against it. Irma irrelevant to gay marriage.

They can be foster parents though. Hopefully that doesn't send you writing to your local MP to ban out unless your going to come up with a way to force more heterosexuals to provide the community service.
 
sydboy007 said:
Legally they're required too. Unless one partner in a gay couple is a biological parent they can't adopt.

You continue to argue against something that is unrelated to the topic. Why not start the I don't support gay parents thread to continue your discussion against it. Irma irrelevant to gay marriage.

They can be foster parents though. Hopefully that doesn't send you writing to your local MP to ban out unless your going to come up with a way to force more heterosexuals to provide the community service.
Click to expand...

I suppose it's a convenient tactic to shut down debate to allege that an argument is off topic, but it's a bit thin in this case.

Anyway, what are your views on a proposed plebiscite on gay marriage ? Imo it should be held at the next election so as not to drag the issue on for years. Should a bare majority decide the outcome or should it be 60-40 at least ?

As for gay foster parents, if the care agency decides that they are the best people available then that's fine by me.
 
I don't agree that it is not related, Syd.

Marriage is about children, and always has been.
Marriage and family are connected.
I am standing up for both.

This thread is about redefining Marriage as we know it, out of existence.

If it is not about children, then why is it to be run through public schools?
Same sex, pornography are all connected, and I don't agree with this being put to primary school children to describe their lifestyle.

My side, keeping marriage as is, needs to stop being censored.
If they want a proper debate, they need to let people talk.

As I said, I am standing up for Marriage to stay as is.
 

Similar threads

basilio
Ozempic: Magic Pill or Devils Bargain?
Replies
10
Views
1K
sptrawler
sptrawler
basilio
Married Sunday, Fired Monday... really?
Replies
18
Views
4K
grah33
G
sydboy007
Combating the stereotypes around homosexuality
Replies
2
Views
992
sydboy007
sydboy007
C
  • Locked
Answers to Islamic Apologism
2 3
Replies
48
Views
9K
doctorj
doctorj
Top