Gay Marriage

Think there was some man in Melbourne who donated sperm to a lesbian and now pay CSA.
As long as it is not compulsorily to be gay I will be happy

sptrawler said:

I think you will find it is only humans that have this underlying desire to explore the sexual extremes?

Click to expand...

Tell that to my neighbour's dog, who seems to want to hump my leg every time I go to their house.

bellenuit said:

Tell that to my neighbour's dog, who seems to want to hump my leg every time I go to their house.

Click to expand...

That tells you that your leg smells like a dogs A___se.

It's probably already been said, but worth reiterating... isn't 'marriage' is a term defined in social and legal jurisdictions for the relationship between a man and a woman. The connotations cover everything from property rights to paternity and custody and child support issues.

For all practical purposes the various notions and laws of defacto relationships and civil union has the same effect as marriage.

What seems to be missing for me in the whole gay marriage agenda is the primary and fundamental right of the child, ie to know their paternity, ie that they came from the union of a man and a woman, and to know this man and woman as their true (paternal) parents for numerous psychological development and medical reasons later in life.

For gay (or lesbian) couples to insist that one partner is called husband and the other wife and raise children from at least one paternal parent in this culture calling one mum, the other dad, is so full of fantasy even fanatical, that I find it hard to see where they are thinking more of the childs welfare than their own, let alone the best interests of the child in terms of 'normal' first impressions and subsequent interactions with other children and people as they get older.

... and don't give me the often used line that all that really matters is a loving relationship! Loving means different things to different people. A single teenage mother might say she loves her child so much that she left her at an orphanage door so she could get a better life. A pedophile says they love their 'victims', and so on.

Why isn't defacto relationship which is sufficient for many heterosexual couples, or civil union if they want a formal relationship, sufficient to identify themselves as gay? Why do they want a historic and practical term for heterosexuals, ie marriage, to some how mean the same to gays?

They sprout the term 'equality' a lot in their so called justification for legally being identified as married. But with 'equality' (in marriage) comes the notion of all parts and functions being equal. This is a contradiction in the extreme gay movement. They plain and simply are not équal (the same) sexual identifies of a marriage... let alone the same contribution to the child of the 'marriage'.

If they want to live together what's wrong or deficient with the defacto relationship laws and civil union concept if they want to formalise the arrangement. I just don't get it, if they are so proud to be gay, why they wouldn't want to be differentiated from heterosexuals, ie why they wouldn't want to be called some thing different such as civil union to specifically differentiate their so called proud homosexuality form heterosexual.

Great post, Whiskers. I've been thinking the same but have lacked the capacity to put it into coherent words.
About time someone pointed out how all this self indulgent posturing is likely to affect any children involved.

And I'm still finding it incomprehensible that the government is so focused on this issue!

Whiskers said:

It's probably already been said, but worth reiterating... isn't 'marriage' is a term defined in social and legal jurisdictions for the relationship between a man and a woman. The connotations cover everything from property rights to paternity and custody and child support issues...............

Click to expand...

Good post, exactly the sort of rational discussion required.

Whiskers said:

... I just don't get it, if they are so proud to be gay, why they wouldn't want to be differentiated from heterosexuals, ie why they wouldn't want to be called some thing different such as civil union to specifically differentiate their so called proud homosexuality form heterosexual.

Click to expand...

Because they're not proud to be gay, they are ashamed (though they would never admit it). Being able to use the word 'marriage' infers acceptance into the broader community. Allow them that much. It won't hurt you. Be thankful you're not gay yourself; I can't imagine it would be easy.

The children debate is a separate thing. Kids need both male and female parents in order to grow up normally, IMO.

Cardinal George Pell puts it in a nutshell;

"Marriage is about man, woman and children, as it has always been. Any Australia-wide political party which repudiates this does not want to govern, and rejects both tradition and the working class."

Gringotts Bank gets it wrong;

Because they're not proud to be gay, they are ashamed (though they would never admit it). Being able to use the word 'marriage' infers acceptance into the broader community.

Click to expand...

It does not "infer" acceptance. All it does is invite ridicule.

Gringotts Bank said:

The children debate is a separate thing. Kids need both male and female parents in order to grow up normally, IMO.

Click to expand...

I agree that they need different role models or the complete picture as to sexuality and gender. They can get it from various sources; parents, relations, teachers. I assume your statement is that two same gendered parents can't give both sides of the story and that is detrimental to their development in some way.

kennas said:

I agree that they need different role models or the complete picture as to sexuality and gender. They can get it from various sources; parents, relations, teachers. I assume your statement is that two same gendered parents can't give both sides of the story and that is detrimental to their development in some way.

Click to expand...

Yes, sort of. In the case of a boy, he learns what it is to be masculine by having a close relationship with his father. Masculine traits include strength, ambition, competitiveness, dominance, etc. Without that relationship, the boy is unlikely to build a sky scraper or a bridge, run a large company or captain a football club. That's not a huge loss in itself, however what might be more damaging is that he may seek this male role model in the form of a partner later in life (ie. become gay himself). I know the research doesn't support this claim, but my observations suggest that poor same sex relationships with parent figures could be a potential cause of homosexuality.

Calliope said:

Cardinal George Pell puts it in a nutshell;

"Marriage is about man, woman and children, as it has always been. Any Australia-wide political party which repudiates this does not want to govern, and rejects both tradition and the working class."

Gringotts Bank gets it wrong;



It does not "infer" acceptance. All it does is invite ridicule.

Click to expand...

What next, catholic priests being able to marry?

What's the big deal?

I say, let them get married if they want. It does not affect me, so it is none of my business.

I don't get what the big deal is either. However I can see why they would want the same term and definition to heterosexual couples.

Some liken it to previous terms that stated marriage was a union between only a white man and woman or only between a black man and woman. Say you were a person of African descent who was only granted a 'civil union' between yourself and another person of the same race - would you not feel unequal?

However I agree with posters that have stated that bigger issues should be debated and focused on at the moment.

A huge success by the ALP, this announcement did exactly what was intended: divert a large portion of attention away from the 30% pollie-payrise...

I'm not sure whether I've commented on this before.

Marriage is between a couple of opposite sex.

Whatever one wants to call a relationship between a couple of the same sex, it's not marriage.

Excellent post Whiskas, well said

Calliope said:

Cardinal George Pell puts it in a nutshell;

"Marriage is about man, woman and children, as it has always been. Any Australia-wide political party which repudiates this does not want to govern, and rejects both tradition and the working class."

Click to expand...

Agree, has to be some boundaries for our children and future children.

Tink said:

Agree, has to be some boundaries for our children and future children.

Click to expand...

Yeah hetrosexual families are all perfect loving environments with no abuse or poor parenting issues.

nomore4s said:

Yeah hetrosexual families are all perfect loving environments with no abuse or poor parenting issues.

Click to expand...

And how does that affect your thinking on gay marriage as a " perfect loving environment" for kids?

There is nothing to debate, this has no negative effect on anyone but bigots so just give them their gay marriage already so we can move onto more compelling social issues such as euthanasia. This is further evidence that church and state are anything but separated in Australia, keep your religious ideology's out of politics.

Calliope said:

And how does that affect your thinking on gay marriage as a " perfect loving environment" for kids?

Click to expand...

It doesn't, I don't care one way or the other. Just pointing out plenty of gay couples would actually make better parents then lots of hetro couples or even single parents out there.

As far as I know gay couples can have children anyway either through adoption or surrogacy, so I'm not sure what allowing them to get married has to do with parenthood, separate issue.

overhang said:

There is nothing to debate, this has no negative effect on anyone but bigots so just give them their gay marriage already so we can move onto more compelling social issues such as euthanasia. This is further evidence that church and state are anything but separated in Australia, keep your religious ideology's out of politics.

Click to expand...

So you think that anyone who accepts this definition is a religious bigot. I think we know who are the bigots.

mar·riage/ˈmarij/
Noun:
The formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife.
A relationship between married people or the period for which it lasts.

Click to expand...