Its interesting that somebody made the comment which referred to straight couples.What would be the antonym expression to that ? Would it be bent? Would it be crooked?I cant think,in the context of the subject a non pejorative opposite for straight,Please,somebody tell. As far as homophobia is concerned,it is the homosexuals that have the homophobia,otherwise they would not not persist in demanding those who dont really want to KNOW about their personal life style the right to marry.I would welcome a referendum on their right to marry.Amazingly,the prime mover homosexual political lobbyists dont want this!They claim that big money would be spent in advertising against homosexual marriage.What! Where is the honesty in that.This marriage push by homosexuals is all about the legal right to adopt,or to manufacture kids.They claim,that to deny them the right to marry is an infringement of their human rights.What about the rights of the children that they plan to concoct by any means,dont they have a right to a mother,or a father?Children should not be the cannon fodder for change,and if that is homophobic,count me in
“to manufacture kids” – Errr…so what is IVF or sperm donation then?
So what about kids who have one deceased parent, like so many brought up in WWII?
You know children who were victims of forced adoption or who were part of the Stolen Generations were denied their real parents by the very people who now have the same attitude to same sex couples as you have.
Many children are successfully raised by single parents or by a parent and step-parent. Many children are raised by grandparents, aunts and uncles or by older siblings.
It is not the marital status or the sexuality of the parents which matters it is the quality of care.
I actually agree with you on this one. For a complete fruitcake, you’re alright.
Gay people are having children. They are having children right now, at this very moment. You can’t stop a couple from having children if they really really want to-there are many ways to make this happen without adoption, or even IVF.
Giving them the right to marry does not effect this in the slightest.
Incidentally, the reason why those who want gay marriage object to the idea of a referendum is because, as I’m sure you know, referendums are not a matter of “What the majority of the country thinks”-it’s “What the majority of people in the majority of each state and territory in Australia thinks”-it’s part of the reason why referendums have traditionally failed (I believe only 4 in history have ever passed).
And not only that, to have a referendum you would have a lot of negative advertising. I remember the 1999 referendum on a republic-still remember the “No” theme song because it was on TV everyday. At least this time it wasn’t a threat to Republican supporters-no monarchists going around beating up republicans. Take a look at the ads in America calling for votes against gay marriage. It’s not “We oppose gay marriage because….” because really, there’s no reason to object to two people of the same gender-you yourself can only come up with “But…think of the children” which is fairly irrelevant. Instead you get “There’s an attack on your religion” “A storm is coming” “Your religion is being taken away….by the gays”
So a community that is already at risk of being beaten, assaulted, or killed by some ignorant people are now portrayed as “Evil” “Threats” and “Attacking your religion”-how safe would that make a gay person feel in Australia?
And for your knowledge, gay people have a beautiful habit of reclaiming words, particularly previously offensive word. Hell, gay was originally an offensive term, and now the homophobes are complaining “It’s our word meaning happy! Give it back!” So bent is sometimes used, though queer is far more popular. But generally, wait around and whatever word you come up to define homosexuals and knock them down, wait about 10 years and in most cases it’ll be the name of a nightclub.
I asked why homosexuals refer to hetrosexuals as Straight?,in the sense that the word begs a antonym I cannot find one that is not pejorative.
My thesaurus says words like: deceitful,dishonest,changing,unfair,twisted,broken,disorderly,etc.Now most homosexuals would see that opposite as pejorative.So do I.
Nope,the hidden agenda.That says it all.Imagine some kid dropped off to a public school.say, second year high school age, by two embracing dads.Immediately,that kid is stigmatised,and nothing you proponents out there can say will alter that reality.Love just aint everything.Marriage is our territory,invent your own word,we dont care what you do in the privacy of your own lifestyle,just dont inflict it on the innocents.Homosexuals are normal to themselves,I accept that,but to gain ,full societal recognition, numbering only 3% of the population? Isn’t that the tail trying to wag the dog? Join the Greens.
People were saying that shit about interracial marriages 50 years ago. In a few years you’ll probably look as stupid as they do now.
“Immediately,that kid is stigmatised,and nothing you proponents out there can say will alter that reality.”
So the reason you oppose gay marriage isn’t because any bias against gay people, it’s the fear that by allowing gay marriage, gay people will have children (Which they already do). And even then, it’s not that gay people can’t be good parents, it’s the problem that they’ll be stigamtised by other children.
It’s true, this could happen. Children can be cruel. They can definitely target another child for having parents of the same gender.
They can also do this if a child has parents of different races. Shall we ban mixed race marriage while we’re banning same sex marriage?
Children can also be targeted for having red hair? Will red headed people now be banned from having children?
They can also target a child if they are fat, thin, short, tall, freckly, virtually everything can be used as a target to stigmatise a child on.
So, do we either remove all points of difference among children, to make one uniform clone race? Or do we instead trying and stop bullying by punishing the bully, rather than subtly suggest “Well, if you weren’t so different, you wouldn’t get bullied, so it’s kinda your fault”?
“Marriage is our territory,”
As a married man, I am totally happy for gay people to marry. In fact, I’m really sad that I won’t get to see some of my best friends not being able to enjoy the same commitment and union that I have with my wife.
“,invent your own word”
Why don’t you? Marriage has changed so often its definition, if you want marriage to be an exclusive club that doesn’t allow gay people, why don’t you come up with a new name to define your super duper relationship that gay people aren’t allowed to join?
“we dont care what you do in the privacy of your own lifestyle,just dont inflict it on the innocents”
How exactly is homosexuality being “inflicted” on the innocent?
“Homosexuals are normal to themselves,I accept that,but to gain ,full societal recognition, numbering only 3% of the population? ”
So now you’re saying that gay people shouldn’t have full legal recognition because they make up a small minority of the population?
Okay, at what point does a population receive full legal rights? I mean, if your argument is “3% isn’t enough-so we get to class them as second class citizens” do we also say Aborigines don’t deserve full societal recognition as they only make up around 2.3% of the population? The illeterate make up around 1% of the population as well-they’re second class citizens too according to yuor rules.
No, of course not. Your argument is essentially “Gay people can’t get married because I don’t like gay people” but keep on trying to come up with rules to define why they can’t.
But for your ease, I’ll simplify exactly why the arguments are wrong:
-“Gay people can’t get married because if they do they’ll have kids” – Gay people who choose to already have children.
-“Gay people can’t have kids because that kid will be treated badly by others for having gay parents” – Children can be treated badly by others for all sorts of reasons, and trying to eliminate all those reasons would result in creating a clone race.
-“Gay people can’t get married because they only make up a tiny percentage of the population so therefore do not deserve full societal recognition” – The gay population that you have provided is greater than the proportion of Aboriginal people in Australia-if you are saying that gay people do not deserve full societal recognition due to their proportion in the population, you are also saying Aboriginal people do not deserve full societal recognition.
I think the average kid in this day and age brought up on an educated household wouldn’t give two shits if schoolmates parents are of the same sex.
So JM, If the right to homosexual marriage,is supported by the majority of Australians.(according to homosexual propoganda)it is interesting to note how NONE of the politicians ie Labor and Greens are promoting it right now a week before the elections Further on the subject of children,a mum and a dad is preferable.Who in their right mind would want to give a child a bum steer .And Sott,it isn’t shit…………it is a point of view!Bigot.
“)it is interesting to note how NONE of the politicians”
You didn’t watch the news today, did you? Kevin Rudd just launched an uplifting support of gay marriage on Q&A, a comment which has since gone viral.
“Further on the subject of children,a mum and a dad is preferable.Who in their right mind would want to give a child a bum steer .”
Just to be clear, are you saying all heterosexual couples would make better parents than all gay couples? Just be clear about this-because we do not test straight couples to see if they’ll make suitable parents, we do not try and make rules to limit heterosexual couples from being parents at all. Yet you want to try and limit gay couples from having children (Which is in no way prevented or reduced by marriage)-so naturally you’ll have evidence that every single gay couple is a greater risk for children growing up than every single heterosexual couple if you want to limit only gay parents, and not any other group in society.
“And Sott,it isn’t shit…………it is a point of view!Bigot.”
Respond to his point, neville. Don’t just ignore it because he’s actually challenging your processes.
People were using virtually the same arguments as you are using now 50 years ago to decry and complain about interracial marriage. What makes your stand against gay marriage so much more enlightened, and not something we’ll all look back in embarrassment over 50 years ago?
In the end it comes down to people minding their own business. Who cares who wants to marry and have kids. Let people do what they like and get on with their lives and stop interfering. Just cause something is your opinion doesn’t make it fact.
Militant, politically savvy homosexuals have made this issue so controversial.First,they have been dishonest in not revealing their true intentions why they want legal marriage(kids) and secondly,they are a small minority who want to wave their sexuality,like a flag,which annoys the living daylights out of people like myself. I accept them as people,and I have no problem with the fact that they are different.
Then leave them alone. They are not bothering you.
What about Joseph Fritzel? Great dad, always knew where his kids were.
“First,they have been dishonest in not revealing their true intentions why they want legal marriage(kids)”
Again, if this is the true secret intentions, and all gay people want is to have kids….why don’t they just have kids?
Come on neville, you ignored this many times over now. If a gay couple wants to have a child there are many many avenues that they can pursue right now, at this moment, that are perfectly legal (especially if the couple are lesbians). How can the ultimate aim of gay marriage be having kids when gay couples can already have children?
“secondly,they are a small minority who want to wave their sexuality,like a flag,”
So, you believe if you are a small minority you’re not allowed to celebrate who you are, and have to live in denial about this?
Have you told the Indian population of Australia this? “You’re not allowed to celebrate your nationality, culture or religion, because you’re a minority in this country and it annoys me”?
What about the Aboriginal population: “You’re not allowed to have special celebrations of who you are because you’re a minority in this country”
I can’t wait to see how it goes!
“which annoys the living daylights out of people like myself.”
Oh, so gay people aren’t allowed to celebrate who they are because it annoys you and people you know.
Neville, you annoy me, and people I know. Am I allowed to request you stop celebrating your bigotry and conservatism and waving your intolerant views around like a flag? If you’re allowed to complain about gay people exercising their free speech, surely I’m allowed to complain about you exercising your free speech.
” I accept them as people,and I have no problem with the fact that they are different.”
You just think there’s something intrinsically wrong with them, and that if they have kids they will be worse parents than EVERY SINGLE HETEROSEXUAL COUPLE in the world (Again, as we do not try in any way to limit or even discourage any heterosexual couples from having children, but you seem to think we need to stop or limit all homosexual couples from having children).
Hate to go to extremes here, but according to this theory if Ivan Milat found himself a nice woman and they made a baby together on a conjugal visit-would you think that union would be a safer and happier place for a child to grow up than my manager who has raised his daughter with his male partner for 15 years now?
Hey JM what do you mean by Celebrate who they are ? Explain. I dont celebrate who I am,what for?How ridiculous that is.You give a childish example of a convicted mass murderer who is in jail,etc,how inane.All I can say as far as your manager is concerned is, I wonder whether his daughter in some quiet moment wished that she had a mum.Have you a mum, JM?.
“Hey JM what do you mean by Celebrate who they are ?”
I mean that when people around the world say that what you are is evil, sinful, that you should be cured by being beaten, raped, or murdered, when entire religions and countries have laws in place to punish you for who you are, having a place where who you are is something seen as normal and great is necessary and beneficial to the entire community.
” Explain. I dont celebrate who I am,what for?”
Oh, don’t you? I mean, I celebrate my religion multiple times a year, my nationality at many different occasions, my sexuality and my relationship at my wedding, anniversary, valentine’s day…..you don’t do any of that?
“You give a childish example of a convicted mass murderer who is in jail,etc,how inane.”
And you don’t answer the question. So I’ll ask you again:
Hate to go to extremes here, but according to this theory if Ivan Milat found himself a nice woman and they made a baby together on a conjugal visit-would you think that union would be a safer and happier place for a child to grow up than my manager who has raised his daughter with his male partner for 15 years now?
“All I can say as far as your manager is concerned is, I wonder whether his daughter in some quiet moment wished that she had a mum.”
She’s very happy. A friend of mine who has gay parents is very happy. But please, if you’ve got a source of a child complaining about their parents being gay, and saying “I wish I had never been born, because it would have been better I never excisted than having two parents of the same gender” please present it.
Oh, you don’t? If you don’t have evidence that children with same sex parents are not in anyway angry that their parents are gay, and preferring to not exist than to have gay parents, then you have no basis for complaint.
“Have you a mum, JM?.”
Yes, and a Dad. Now have you actually ever met a real gay person, or a child raised by a gay person or couple.
Now, since I’ve asked all your questions-do you mind answering mine:
1. So a community that is already at risk of being beaten, assaulted, or killed by some ignorant people are now portrayed as “Evil” “Threats” and “Attacking your religion”-how safe would that make a gay person feel in Australia?
2. So, do we either remove all points of difference among children, to make one uniform clone race? Or do we instead trying and stop bullying by punishing the bully, rather than subtly suggest “Well, if you weren’t so different, you wouldn’t get bullied, so it’s kinda your fault”?
3. “,invent your own word”
Why don’t you? Marriage has changed so often its definition, if you want marriage to be an exclusive club that doesn’t allow gay people, why don’t you come up with a new name to define your super duper relationship that gay people aren’t allowed to join?
4. So now you’re saying that gay people shouldn’t have full legal recognition because they make up a small minority of the population?
Okay, at what point does a population receive full legal rights? I mean, if your argument is “3% isn’t enough-so we get to class them as second class citizens” do we also say Aborigines don’t deserve full societal recognition as they only make up around 2.3% of the population? The illeterate make up around 1% of the population as well-they’re second class citizens too according to yuor rules.
5. Just to be clear, are you saying all heterosexual couples would make better parents than all gay couples?
6. People were using virtually the same arguments as you are using now 50 years ago to decry and complain about interracial marriage. What makes your stand against gay marriage so much more enlightened, and not something we’ll all look back in embarrassment over 50 years ago?
7. Again, if this is the true secret intentions, and all gay people want is to have kids….why don’t they just have kids?
8. Come on neville, you ignored this many times over now. If a gay couple wants to have a child there are many many avenues that they can pursue right now, at this moment, that are perfectly legal (especially if the couple are lesbians). How can the ultimate aim of gay marriage be having kids when gay couples can already have children?
9. So, you believe if you are a small minority you’re not allowed to celebrate who you are, and have to live in denial about this?
Have you told the Indian population of Australia this? “You’re not allowed to celebrate your nationality, culture or religion, because you’re a minority in this country and it annoys me”?
What about the Aboriginal population: “You’re not allowed to have special celebrations of who you are because you’re a minority in this country”
I can’t wait to see how it goes!
10. Oh, so gay people aren’t allowed to celebrate who they are because it annoys you and people you know.
Neville, you annoy me, and people I know. Am I allowed to request you stop celebrating your bigotry and conservatism and waving your intolerant views around like a flag? If you’re allowed to complain about gay people exercising their free speech, surely I’m allowed to complain about you exercising your free speech.
11. Considering the majority of people in Australia support gay marriage, and you think normal is the majority, does this make you abnormal?
And again, the summary of your arguments:
-”Gay people can’t get married because if they do they’ll have kids” – Gay people who choose to already have children.
-”Gay people can’t have kids because that kid will be treated badly by others for having gay parents” – Children can be treated badly by others for all sorts of reasons, and trying to eliminate all those reasons would result in creating a clone race.
-”Gay people can’t get married because they only make up a tiny percentage of the population so therefore do not deserve full societal recognition” – The gay population that you have provided is greater than the proportion of Aboriginal people in Australia-if you are saying that gay people do not deserve full societal recognition due to their proportion in the population, you are also saying Aboriginal people do not deserve full societal recognition.
-Homosexuality is wrong because it’s unnatural
If it’s unnatural, why does it occur a lot in nature?
-Homosexuality is wrong because the words I used to describe it is wrong
Don’t use those words to describe it then.
The very definition of straight for heterosexuals,(,A term used by homosexuals), implies a recognisanse difference that has a resonance amongst their ownn ilk,
So what are, or who are they?These weirdos.Who use this term?
Bent? warped? Crooked?distorted?
How dare they call people,who are sexually as nature intended the species (Penis in Vagina)anything other than normal,,
Striaght is used by straight people as well. It rolls off the tongue easier than heterosexual.
“So what are, or who are they?These weirdos.Who use this term?
Bent? warped? Crooked?distorted?”
Again, the word bent came around as a word to insult gay people. Straight turned up in response to that. Bent has since been reclaimed.
But to be clear, are you saying gay is wrong “Because the word I’ve invented to describe them is negative”?
“How dare they call people,who are sexually as nature intended the species (Penis in Vagina)anything other than normal,,”
Ah, so sex that involves anything other than penis in vagina is unnatural now? Firstly, does this mean all other sexual behaviour, including a lot of heterosexual sex acts are unnatural, unless they are penis in vagina? If so, I’m guessing unnatural is going to the norm.
Also, if homosexual sex (Because that’s what your implying) is unnatural….how come it turns up all the time in nature? I mean, seriously, if it’s unnatural, surely we shouldn’t be seeing it in 100+ different species of animals, including highly intelligent animals such as dolphins.
The reason we don’t use the word “normal” for heterosexual is the same reason we don’t use the word normal for white people, christians, males, right handed people, brown headed people etc. Normal is only used as a word to make others feel bad, to insult others, to make clear people know they are the minority, they are diverting from what they were meant to be, they are disturbing a perfectly fine society which didn’t involve them.
That’s why. Now how dare you call people you know nothing about as unnatural.
Hey J.M, I will say what I like…..Write to Tony Abbott and ask what he thinks about homosexual marriage and the adoption of kids.He will understand,as he has a lesbian sister.Go on give him a try.,Surely he will think that my views are out of line.
Or will he?Have you heard of the word Zeitgeist?Look it up.I think Abbott paraphrased that a week or so ago.Very interesting the Zeitgeist.
“Hey J.M, I will say what I like…..”
Great. As will I. And as will homosexuals.
Now you seem to think homosexuals can’t say what they like because it offends you, but you can say what you like regardless of whether it offends anyone.
“Write to Tony Abbott and ask what he thinks about homosexual marriage and the adoption of kids.”
Why? I disagree with Tony Abbot on basically everything, so why would I what to dsicuss policy options with him?
Are you about to write to Bob Brown, Wyatt Roy, or Malcolm Turnball to explain about gay marriage?
Incidentally, isn’t it Tony Abbot who has recently softened his opinion on gay marriage from “We believe marriage must be between a man and a woman” to “We will discuss the possibility of gay marriage within the party room after the election?
Why the softening neville? I mean, if all of Australia opposes gay marriage, if it’s a hardcore belief of the party-why the softening from “Nope, never ever”: to “Maybe, we’ll think about it”?
And again, stuff you ignored:
1. So a community that is already at risk of being beaten, assaulted, or killed by some ignorant people are now portrayed as “Evil” “Threats” and “Attacking your religion”-how safe would that make a gay person feel in Australia?
2. So, do we either remove all points of difference among children, to make one uniform clone race? Or do we instead trying and stop bullying by punishing the bully, rather than subtly suggest “Well, if you weren’t so different, you wouldn’t get bullied, so it’s kinda your fault”?
3. “,invent your own word”
Why don’t you? Marriage has changed so often its definition, if you want marriage to be an exclusive club that doesn’t allow gay people, why don’t you come up with a new name to define your super duper relationship that gay people aren’t allowed to join?
4. So now you’re saying that gay people shouldn’t have full legal recognition because they make up a small minority of the population?
Okay, at what point does a population receive full legal rights? I mean, if your argument is “3% isn’t enough-so we get to class them as second class citizens” do we also say Aborigines don’t deserve full societal recognition as they only make up around 2.3% of the population? The illeterate make up around 1% of the population as well-they’re second class citizens too according to yuor rules.
5. Just to be clear, are you saying all heterosexual couples would make better parents than all gay couples?
6. People were using virtually the same arguments as you are using now 50 years ago to decry and complain about interracial marriage. What makes your stand against gay marriage so much more enlightened, and not something we’ll all look back in embarrassment over 50 years ago?
7. Again, if this is the true secret intentions, and all gay people want is to have kids….why don’t they just have kids?
8. Come on neville, you ignored this many times over now. If a gay couple wants to have a child there are many many avenues that they can pursue right now, at this moment, that are perfectly legal (especially if the couple are lesbians). How can the ultimate aim of gay marriage be having kids when gay couples can already have children?
9. So, you believe if you are a small minority you’re not allowed to celebrate who you are, and have to live in denial about this?
Have you told the Indian population of Australia this? “You’re not allowed to celebrate your nationality, culture or religion, because you’re a minority in this country and it annoys me”?
What about the Aboriginal population: “You’re not allowed to have special celebrations of who you are because you’re a minority in this country”
I can’t wait to see how it goes!
10. Oh, so gay people aren’t allowed to celebrate who they are because it annoys you and people you know.
Neville, you annoy me, and people I know. Am I allowed to request you stop celebrating your bigotry and conservatism and waving your intolerant views around like a flag? If you’re allowed to complain about gay people exercising their free speech, surely I’m allowed to complain about you exercising your free speech.
11. Considering the majority of people in Australia support gay marriage, and you think normal is the majority, does this make you abnormal?
12. ” Explain. I dont celebrate who I am,what for?”
Oh, don’t you? I mean, I celebrate my religion multiple times a year, my nationality at many different occasions, my sexuality and my relationship at my wedding, anniversary, valentine’s day…..you don’t do any of that?
13. But please, if you’ve got a source of a child complaining about their parents being gay, and saying “I wish I had never been born, because it would have been better I never excisted than having two parents of the same gender” please present it.
Oh, you don’t? If you don’t have evidence that children with same sex parents are not in anyway angry that their parents are gay, and preferring to not exist than to have gay parents, then you have no basis for complaint.
14. Now have you actually ever met a real gay person, or a child raised by a gay person or couple.
15. Again, the word bent came around as a word to insult gay people. Straight turned up in response to that. Bent has since been reclaimed.
But to be clear, are you saying gay is wrong “Because the word I’ve invented to describe them is negative”?
16. Ah, so sex that involves anything other than penis in vagina is unnatural now? Firstly, does this mean all other sexual behaviour, including a lot of heterosexual sex acts are unnatural, unless they are penis in vagina? If so, I’m guessing unnatural is going to the norm.
17. Also, if homosexual sex (Because that’s what your implying) is unnatural….how come it turns up all the time in nature? I mean, seriously, if it’s unnatural, surely we shouldn’t be seeing it in 100+ different species of animals, including highly intelligent animals such as dolphins.
And again, the summary of your arguments:
-”Gay people can’t get married because if they do they’ll have kids” – Gay people who choose to already have children.
-”Gay people can’t have kids because that kid will be treated badly by others for having gay parents” – Children can be treated badly by others for all sorts of reasons, and trying to eliminate all those reasons would result in creating a clone race.
-”Gay people can’t get married because they only make up a tiny percentage of the population so therefore do not deserve full societal recognition” – The gay population that you have provided is greater than the proportion of Aboriginal people in Australia-if you are saying that gay people do not deserve full societal recognition due to their proportion in the population, you are also saying Aboriginal people do not deserve full societal recognition.
-Homosexuality is wrong because it’s unnatural
If it’s unnatural, why does it occur a lot in nature?
-Homosexuality is wrong because the words I used to describe it is wrong
Don’t use those words to describe it then.
And the new one
-Homosexuality is wrong because I think Tony Abbot thinks it’s wrong.
Tony Abbot isn’t the be all and end all definer of laws, morality and ethics in this country, just as KEvin Rudd wasn’t before him. Also, Abbot has softened his stance of gay marriage, albeit very slightly, so you needto ask yourself why that is?
The bottom line for me is the kids.Nobody on your side has honestly raised the possibility of stigmatisation.Homosexuals are not a disparate group, They are,or it seems to me, they are a community.A child growing up in the sort of community I imagine would do nothing towards alleviating that stigma.I disagree with you on majority support for homosexual marriage,because the real question has never been put,and that question is the foundation for the push towards homosexual marriage.Try a poll on the REAL question.If this change has such a roaring majority try a referendum.
Neville., you might change your name, but you still won’t answer questions.
“A child growing up in the sort of community I imagine would do nothing towards alleviating that stigma.”
So….we shouldn’t allow gay marriage because kids in gay marriages might be stigmatised. Even though gay people are having children without getting married.
So….we shouldn’t allow children in gay marriage because they might be treated badly at school? Are we also going to ban fat kids, short kids, tall kids, kids with freckles, kids from mixed race parents, kids with red hair, kids who are blonde-after all, at a school level all these kids may be bullied because of these things. So are we going to make a clone master race of identitcal children to prevent any difference that may cause bullying, or just try and stop bullies?
“I disagree with you on majority support for homosexual marriage”
“.If this change has such a roaring majority try a referendum.”
Already responded to/ Shall I repeat myself:
“Incidentally, the reason why those who want gay marriage object to the idea of a referendum is because, as I’m sure you know, referendums are not a matter of “What the majority of the country thinks”-it’s “What the majority of people in the majority of each state and territory in Australia thinks”-it’s part of the reason why referendums have traditionally failed (I believe only 4 in history have ever passed).
And not only that, to have a referendum you would have a lot of negative advertising. I remember the 1999 referendum on a republic-still remember the “No” theme song because it was on TV everyday. At least this time it wasn’t a threat to Republican supporters-no monarchists going around beating up republicans. Take a look at the ads in America calling for votes against gay marriage. It’s not “We oppose gay marriage because….” because really, there’s no reason to object to two people of the same gender-you yourself can only come up with “But…think of the children” which is fairly irrelevant. Instead you get “There’s an attack on your religion” “A storm is coming” “Your religion is being taken away….by the gays”
So a community that is already at risk of being beaten, assaulted, or killed by some ignorant people are now portrayed as “Evil” “Threats” and “Attacking your religion”-how safe would that make a gay person feel in Australia? ”
Now that I’ve answered all your questions, twice, and you’ve ignored all your answers-mind answering any of my questions?
I can never understand why people say things like Homosexuals should not get married because if the have kids they might get picked on. Who are the people picking on them? creating the stigma? It is people like you and your kids, that is who. If people would stop being homophobic and stop hating people who never did anything to them then maybe people would not pick on those kids. So the real problem is not how same sex couples raise children it is how everyone else does not teach their children to be decent human beings who respect each other. I would much rather a child that has to endure some hardships (as we all do) and stays proud of themselves and their family and grows as a person to be stronger and respects others for who they are than a child that spreads hate and picks on a child for something that has nothing to do with them. Did you ever have to explain your parent’s sex life or genitals to your classmates? If you think it is ok to spread hate through your children and allow them to be hateful and homophobic to others then you are a bad parent and that is something that people should be concerned about not what genitals people have.
Which is what you are discussing. That whole you need a mum and a dad stuff is crap. Why do you? so you have a balance of gender role models? Gender is not the same as sex (the biological state of male or female) gender is a social construct of masculinity and femininity and people can have both regardless of sex. Are you saying that single parents cannot raise a child successfully? Most I know do a great job. So how would having two loving parents ever be a disadvantage. It is far better to have same sex parents than abusive or negligent parents.
Hey Lou.So needing a mum and dad is crap?Which planet are you on?And J.M Im not here to follow your agenda,and answer your questions,and as far as newspaper polls are concerned they are probably stacked with your mates.The fact that homosexuals do not want a referendum is that they KNOW the silent majority who are intimidated by all the political correctness inhibiting them to express how they really feel will simply say no.As the American ethisist Elshtain said in her book Democracy on Trial.”But no one has a civil right,as a gay,a disciple of an exotic religion,or a political dissident,to full public sanction of his or her activities,values,beliefs or habits.To be publicly legitimated,or validated,in ones beliefs or habits may be a political aim,indeed it is the overiding aim of the politics of displacement– but it is hardly a civil right.Parodoxically in his quest to attain sanction for the full range of who he is,the cross dresser,or sadomasochist,the variations are endless,puts his life on display.He opens himself up to publicity in ways that others are bound to find uncivil.” Your sexuality is your business,we do not want to know about it,please.
“Im not here to follow your agenda,”
What Agenda?
“and answer your questions,”
Then why are you here? Are you expecting the right to say whatever you want and not be questioned?
And why not answer questions? If your beliefs are so based on facts and security, couldn’t they’ stand some scrutiny?
“as far as newspaper polls are concerned they are probably stacked with your mates.”
They weren’t newspaper polls. But if you’ve got a better source, please present it. To be honest though, you don’t.
“.The fact that homosexuals do not want a referendum is that they KNOW the silent majority ”
How do you know you are a part of the majority? Again, if you’ve got better evidence, please present it.
Again, the reason a referendum would be bad is:
“Incidentally, the reason why those who want gay marriage object to the idea of a referendum is because, as I’m sure you know, referendums are not a matter of “What the majority of the country thinks”-it’s “What the majority of people in the majority of each state and territory in Australia thinks”-it’s part of the reason why referendums have traditionally failed (I believe only 4 in history have ever passed).
And not only that, to have a referendum you would have a lot of negative advertising. I remember the 1999 referendum on a republic-still remember the “No” theme song because it was on TV everyday. At least this time it wasn’t a threat to Republican supporters-no monarchists going around beating up republicans. Take a look at the ads in America calling for votes against gay marriage. It’s not “We oppose gay marriage because….” because really, there’s no reason to object to two people of the same gender-you yourself can only come up with “But…think of the children” which is fairly irrelevant. Instead you get “There’s an attack on your religion” “A storm is coming” “Your religion is being taken away….by the gays”
So a community that is already at risk of being beaten, assaulted, or killed by some ignorant people are now portrayed as “Evil” “Threats” and “Attacking your religion”-how safe would that make a gay person feel in Australia? ”
Three times I’ve answered your response about a referendum. Have you ever read it? No, of course not. They’d would involve possible considering another person’s opinion.
That’s why you think you’re a part of the majority-isn’t it? You ignore anyone who disagrees with you-so of course theo nly thing left over is your opinion.
“Your sexuality is your business,we do not want to know about it,please.”
Again, homosexuality should be silenced because you find it offensive. I find your beliefs offensive-am I allowed to demand you be silent?
!. Learn to spell “ethicist”. I can tell you have had little or no contact with ethics.
2. Elshtain was a conservative and a favourite of GWB but she did not unequivocally dismiss same sex marriage. She just wanted debate on it. Ethicists often raise the most absurd hypotheses simply to have a debate.
Since you pretend to know something about the subject take a look at some of the arguments posited by Peter Singer for the same purpose, different topic. Some look quite shocking to the uninitiated.
3. If you have an acute problem with children raised by same sex couples then obviously you would also have a problem with kids raised by single parents.
4. We’ll tell you what we tell all bigots. If you do not like same sex marriage, don’t have one.
Here we go again.Attack the person and not his/her point of view.I have read Peter Singer.I think it was called How should we live, You are assuming that I am a bigot because I do not share your point of view.I have no quarrel with homosexuals,I believe that they are as,,a small percentage of the population, are demanding rights that they are not entitled to,and further more,if they believe that they are entitled to the two states that I disagree with ie marriage and the adoption of children,when does the debate begin.
Your supposedly “contact” with ethics has not served you well,as you fail to accept that not everybody out here in the real world shares your views.And further,single parenting has nothing whatsoever to do with homosexual marriage.Where is your logic.Shifting ground has been the way I have been attacked on this site,which says very little for sensible debate.Your last sentence says it all.Homosexuals are themselves homophobic otherwise they would never want marriage.Legal validation by trickery and not debate.You and your ilk wish to change society,the tail does not wag the dog.
“Attack the person and not his/her point of view.”
Oh really? You’ve already said you’re not here to answer questions, not willing to have your point of view challenged at all-so wha’ts left nifty?
You won’t accept questioning of your belief, won’t accept attacks of your person-what are you accepting? Because it seems the only response you’ll accept is “I agree with you nifty”
But if there’s a way to disagree with you that you’ll allow (Considering questioning your beliefs and questioning you are both not allowed) please let me know.
“I have no quarrel with homosexuals,”
If you don’t have a problem with homosexuals, who you accuse of having a secret agenda, and should not be allowed with children-how do you act around someone you do have a quarrel with?
” believe that they are as,,a small percentage of the population, are demanding rights that they are not entitled to”
Again, the gay population of Australia is higher than the Aboriginal population of Australia. Should Aborigines not be allowed to have civil rights or the right to get married? Because if your argument is “Well, there’s not that many so they don’t deserve rights because of that” – then there’s a lot of groups in Australia who are smaller than the homosexual population.
“if they believe that they are entitled to the two states that I disagree with ie marriage and the adoption of children,”
Again, gay people are having children. Right now. You’re not stopping them. What you are stopping is the possibility of adopted children getting loving homes. Good on you!
“you fail to accept that not everybody out here in the real world shares your views”
Whereas you, nifty, accept all views, as long as they agree with yours. Questioning will not be accepted.
“And further,single parenting has nothing whatsoever to do with homosexual marriage.”
Only if you ignore everything you’ve just said. You said that a child needs a mogther and a father-both. So if a child definitely needs a mother and a father, which is your reason to not allow gay parenting, how is single parenting okay?
“.Shifting ground has been the way I have been attacked on this site,which says very little for sensible debate.”
Again, you have been involved in sensible debate for a long time now. You’re ignoring any response which doesn’t end with “I agree with you entirely nifty”
Please, again, tell me how a person is allowed to disagree with you in a way you’d accept. Because so far all you’re doing is “I don’t answer questions/I ignore those results/I ignore that opinion/You’re attacking me”
“Homosexuals are themselves homophobic otherwise they would never want marriage.”
Weren’t you just complaining about a lack of logic a while ago? I see no logic in this statement at all.
“You and your ilk wish to change society,the tail does not wag the dog.’
Again, every poll in Australia has shown a majority support for gay marriage. You have not found ANY evidence to the contrary. Not a damn thing.
The tail is already wagging, you’re just trying to grab a hold of it. Good luck with that.
It is my philosophical view that there is nourishment in opposition(my quote by the way)so let us enjoy the feast.J.M says the tail is wagging and I think Tony Abbott has seriously got his hands on it.Now I know that Tony is a Luddite,who does not believe the science that says global warming is happening,but on the question of homosexual marriage I see him as a catalyst for a real debate on this issue.Not just a debate on “Gay” marriage per se,but a debate on the ramifications arising from that,which,objectively deals with my main concern,the stigmatisation of kids,and any other concern or fears that the general community may have.I welcome that.And no matter what the opponents of a referendum may think,surely it is a step that you/they the homosexual community must bravely take.
“the stigmatisation of kids”
Again on the stigmatisation of kids?
As I’ve said before, kids can be stigmatised for having two parents of different races, of only have one parent, lots of reasons.
So, do we either remove all points of difference among children, to make one uniform clone race? Or do we instead trying and stop bullying by punishing the bully, rather than subtly suggest “Well, if you weren’t so different, you wouldn’t get bullied, so it’s kinda your fault”?
Or in other words-if you are wanting to ban gay marriage due to a fear of stigmatisation of children, why not ban all possible things that will lead to stigmatisation?
Which brings us back to the other question-why ban gay marriage due to concerns for children, when gay people who want to have children already are having children right now?
“I welcome that.”
You welcome a debate, but when presented with a debate refuse to answer questions about your beliefs. Why is that?
Or is it the case that you’re okay with a debate, as long as you’re not questioned.
“And no matter what the opponents of a referendum may think,surely it is a step that you/they the homosexual community must bravely take.”
Must? Why must? Did we have a referendum to allow women the vote? To end the white Australia policy?
We have given virtually all civil rights without a referendum, because as I have repeatedly stated referendums do not pass on the will of the people, but the will of the majority people in the majority of states-a completely different thing.
So why “must” we have a referendum on gay marriage when we have had a reverefdum on only a tiny number of issues in Australia, especially considering it would lead to an already harrassed community being attacked.
I support gay marriage. I’ve been in a same sex relationship for three years and wish to marry my partner one day.
The reason we must have a referendum is because we now have a prime minister who is against homosexual marriage,(notice the lower case)and if my judgement is correct will not allow a conscience vote in the lower house,should the labor party or the greens etc put one up.On the question of civil rights,marriage is essentially between a man and a woman,for the benefit of children,and I would add,that if people are talking about civil rights,why not go and preach to the governments of North Korea,Iran,China,Russia,Uganda,Saudi Arabia.I could go on.I am not a religious person,quite the opposite,the fact that my views coincide with some of that mob is a coincidence nothing more.A referendum is the only possible avenue to take,at least for the next three years,and JM if homosexuality is so mainstream why do you refer to them as a “Community”and also,as far as the notion of harassment,and being attacked is concerned I think that is rubbish……In my view JM In my view!!Voltaire said something like, I dont agree with your point of view but I will die for your right to express it.Dont hate me, thats bigotry.
I don’t want any more than to marry my partner. I don’t want children and neither does my partner. I don’t support gay couples deliberately having children. I think that children should have the starting point of a mother and father in a relationship. Not all gay couples want children if that is your fear.
Carol, I know a lot of gay parents, and children of gay parents. All are fine.
Similarly I know a lot of childre nraised by one parent. They’re going well too.
There’s no evidence that having gay parents puts a child at any risk for development at all. The only significant difference from studies I believe, is that children raisedby gay parents tend to be more tolerant of homosexuality.
“The reason we must have a referendum is because we now have a prime minister who is against homosexual marriage”
Wait, we must have a referendum because the government is opposed to same-sex marriage? Surely we’d need a referendum on every topic, because the Government is currently against a lot of things.
Or, instead, people could make it an election issue, and choose to vote on that. After all, Tony Abbot won’t be Prime Minister forever you know. Also, he’s already backing down. He’s gone from “It’s something we’re against,” to “It’s something we’ll consider in the next parliament”-a big change. And the amount of times he’s backing down on things at the moment, if he gets desperate enough.
“marriage is essentially between a man and a woman,for the benefit of children,”
Says who? The Bible who goes through multiple forms of marriage in the old testament alone?
Also, if it’s for the benefit of children, are infertile or sterile couples allowed to marry? Also, are single parents allowed to keep care of their children?
“I would add,that if people are talking about civil rights,why not go and preach to the governments of North Korea,Iran,China,Russia,Uganda,Saudi Arabia.”
Wait, so the reason gay people can’t complain about civil rights is “Countries elsewhere have fewer rights”?
Are we allowed to dismiss all social issues as well nifty? “Well, the rate of sexual assault in this country is high, but not as high as in other countries, so before you start complaining about rapists in Australia, you should go overseas an complain there”
Well, I put it to you, if gay marriage is such a concern to you nifty, why aren’t you going to preach to England, France, South Africa, Canada, various states in the US, etc?
“A referendum is the only possible avenue to take,at least for the next three years,”
Unless there’s a double dissolution.
Also, activists can continue to make it an issue, refuse to be quiet on it, and this would result in it becoming a main election issue-leading to Abbott backing down in order to save his government (Not particularly likely, but hey, I never would have thought the Liberal party would deny wanting to turn back the boats until this week), or an alternative leader winning a lot of votes on the issue (As is currently happening in the Labor leadership challenges).
“if homosexuality is so mainstream why do you refer to them as a “Community””
Community isn’t mainstream anymore? I refer to the Christian community, the conservative community, the Asian community, the female community-you’re imagining and redefining words again.
“as far as the notion of harassment,and being attacked is concerned I think that is rubbish”
Opinions can be wrong, when their based on inaccuracies, or in your case, ignorance of reality. For instance, if someone were to punch you, and say that didn’t hurt you, you would disagree with their opinion, right?
Or would you accept their view that their punch didnt hurt you?
“Voltaire said something like, I dont agree with your point of view but I will die for your right to express it.Dont hate me, thats bigotry.”
Right, so to be clear, Hating gay people for wanting equal rights, calling them abnormal, wrong, and implying a danger to children is not bigotry-hating someone for have a hateful opinion is bigotry.
Do you honestly believe that, or is it just something you use so you hope people will stop being angry at you? I mean, if someone walked up to you and said “I hate you, and I hope you and everyone you love dies-but don’t hate me, that’s just me opinion, and if you hate me it’s bigotry”-would you not even dislike that person?
You seem to think with that comment that a person should be judged, not on the quality of their character, but on their sexuality. That a person should not be judged on their words and deed, but on who they are in love with. I don’t know if you’ve heard of the term, but “ass backward” is completely appropriate here.
You have a right to your view. That is true. But a right to your view does not include a right to never have your view questioned. That is what you seem to think you have the right to.
Your personal distaste has nothing to do with equal rights. You can express your loathsome intolerance for same sex people (your “rights”) but you cannot either make your intolerance the law of the land if an enlightened government votes to remedy the Marriage Act nor can you make us agree with you. So I guess you are wasting your time here.
And we have an abiding distaste for intolerant bigots. This blog is not and never will be a platform for them.
Unfortunately we cannot make the government outlaw them.
Well, first of all,lets deal with mind madeup.The pseudonym almost reads like a confession of bigotry in itself.A bigot (according to my dictionary) is a person who is intolerant to any ideas other than his own,and I am very interested in the ideas of,and the reason for homosexual people,wanting to “remedy” the marriage act.Am I a bigot?
My heart goes out to Carol,who wants to marry,and she should be able to marry her partner,but, unfortunately for her,some of the more militant homosexuals,they not only want that, but the full,legal entitlement to mix their sperm,find a suitable “mule” to carry the child of that entanglement and then,rear the “offspring” in a supposedly blissfull,idyllic,environment where that child will never fear from peer exclusion,as a result of having a pair of dads,or mums,especially in the formative,highly sensitive teenage years?What?? They are the ones Carol,obstructing the way,not people like myself. We will find a way for you to marry,Carol,you have sensed my fears.I agree,that it is preferable for chidren to have a father and mother,that is my premise.I never thought that I would find someone such as you.You have cut through the internet ether like a knife to saying what you said, simply.I thank you for that.
” but the full,legal entitlement to mix their sperm,find a suitable “mule” to carry the child of that entanglement and then,rear the “offspring” in a supposedly blissfull,idyllic,environment where that child will never fear from peer exclusion”
Do I need to repeat myself again?
1- Gay couples who want to have children can and do have cildren regardless of marriage.
2- Children can be excluded for many many reasons. Are we go to attempt to eliminate all possible reasons for exclusion too?
“We will find a way for you to marry,Carol,”
How? How are you going to arrange for gay couples to get married without allowing them to get married? Please, tell me how.
While you’re figuring out how youre going to allow a lesbian couple to get married while also not allowing gay couples to get married, here is some reading material for you:
http://content.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1994480,00.html
“children raised by lesbian mothers — whether the mother was partnered or single — scored very similarly to children raised by heterosexual parents on measures of development and social behavior. These findings were expected, the authors said; however, they were surprised to discover that children in lesbian homes scored higher than kids in straight families on some psychological measures of self-esteem and confidence, did better academically and were less likely to have behavioral problems, such as rule-breaking and aggression.”
Research findings find no warrant for fears about children of gay and lesbian parents
Evidence, based on gay parents, today. Not fears-actual reality.
I certainly don’t agree with discriminating against people who already have children. Some people don’t come out till after a marriage that involves children. But these people who decide to adopt or use a person outside the marriage to have children I think is not really a fair thing. I just couldn’t do that to children and not have a father figure in the home. I think that it’s selfish thing to do, and I think if you want children then I don’t think that the gay community is the place for you. I’ve very content in my life with my partner and our dog.
If you want children then the gay community is not the right place for you?
You say it’s like it’s a choice. That you either choose to have children or choose to be gay-when both are parts of life that are rights.
Incidentally, see the above post once its approved for evidence that children are not adversely affected by being raised by two gay parents.
Well that’s your opinion. I think people wanting to start families in gay relationships is wrong. I think they are setting back getting gay marriage legalized. That’s what peoples concern is gays starting families. When you have a dad not even in the home it’s not a good start.
O. K Give me an example how homosexuals have children JM.I know one scenario where a homosexual and a lesbian have a child between them,,but, that in an artificially created broken marriage as it were,,,still maintains the dad and mum situation. Hopefully kids in that ” broken family” are not in danger of the risk of stigmatisation,of which nobody on your side of this debate is honest enought to admit is a real possibility.
What are your examplesJ.M of homosexuals having children?? And,Why dont you address my concerns regarding stigmatisation of children?I repeat: Children should not be the cannon fodder for change.Please address with your blinkers off this important aspect of the debate.You know the risks so address them,honestly.
Gay marriage is about recognition of gay relationships. It’s about equal rights. It shouldn’t become about children.
And now we have another exciting example of nifty asking for responses to things he’s already received multiple times.
“O. K Give me an example how homosexuals have children ”
Donations from family members, and surrogacy are two ways that are entirely legal right now and currently happening. And of course, as Carol has said, there are many partners who separate, one of whom or both coming out of the closet. There’s also in family placement, because if a child loses both their parents, surely you’d agree they would be better placed with a family member who loves them, no matter their sexuality, than a stranger.
“I know one scenario where a homosexual and a lesbian have a child between them,,but, that in an artificially created broken marriage as it were,,,still maintains the dad and mum situation”
Wait, you think it would be better for child to grow up in a situation where their parents do not love each other, do not feel attracted to each other and have never been attracted to each other, than to have two parents of the same gender.
“What are your examplesJ.M of homosexuals having children?? “”
As I’ve told you multiple times, my friends afe children of gay parents, and gay parents themselves. I haven’t gotten into the nitty-gritty of how every single one of them came to be-because that’s a bit imposing.
“And,Why dont you address my concerns regarding stigmatisation of children?””
I have responded to yor concerns multiple times! I have responded to your concerns six separate times on this page, and you have repeatedly ignored them. And now you demand I answer, while also saying you’ll refuse to answer any question which challenges your beliefs.
But if you want to hear the response a seventh time:
As I’ve said before, kids can be stigmatised for having two parents of different races, of only have one parent, lots of reasons.
So, do we either remove all points of difference among children, to make one uniform clone race? Or do we instead trying and stop bullying by punishing the bully, rather than subtly suggest “Well, if you weren’t so different, you wouldn’t get bullied, so it’s kinda your fault”?
Or in other words-if you are wanting to ban gay marriage due to a fear of stigmatisation of children, why not ban all possible things that will lead to stigmatisation?
“I repeat: Children should not be the cannon fodder for change.”
Couldn’t this exact same line be used to ban mixed race marriage?
“You know the risks so address them,honestly.”
Did you read the articles I put up? No of course you didn’t-you don’t read or consider things that may challenge your beliefs. It’s a pity though, becaue they are actual studies of gay parents, and found no risks, no long term damage-nothing.
http://content.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1994480,00.html
“children raised by lesbian mothers — whether the mother was partnered or single — scored very similarly to children raised by heterosexual parents on measures of development and social behavior. These findings were expected, the authors said; however, they were surprised to discover that children in lesbian homes scored higher than kids in straight families on some psychological measures of self-esteem and confidence, did better academically and were less likely to have behavioral problems, such as rule-breaking and aggression.”
Research findings find no warrant for fears about children of gay and lesbian parents
I’ve got more since then. Let’s talk directly about bullying. Because one study in America found that children of gay parents were at risk of bullying (Though no measure to determine whether the bullying is more or less likely than other groups)-but here’s the thign. That study had a follow up, when the children were 17, with the same kids, and found NO long term damage,in any measure (social, psychological, emotional, or developmental) http://content.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1994480,00.html
So let’s talk about the risks. Science and research says there are no more risks for gay parenting than straight parenting. Do you want to talk more about this? Or are you going to deny it because it doesn’t fit into your theory?
Exactly Carol,but children are the hidden agenda.Not for you,but there are some people out there who are not like you,or at least what I think you represent,that( in my opinion) see children as posessions and want full legal validation to obtain children,by whatever means and marriage provides that,legally.They say as a defence to my fears,(as you expressed),So what,there are plenty of forms of stigmatisation out there that children are exposed to so another one wont matter.J,M quotes a well respected American female professor who is all for homosexuals having children, but he fails to mention she is a lesbian with a family,which is the truth.
Still waiting on nifty to explain hbow he is going to help Carol get married without allowing marriage. I’m really looking forward to this.
“but children are the hidden agenda”
For the umpteenth time, how are children the hidden agenda when gay parents who chose to do so are having children right now.
“marriage provides that,legally.”
What avenues to having children would marriage provide which is not already provided legally in Australia already? Considering gay partnerships are eligible to de facto recognition, and de facto has the right to most of the things marriage provides in Australia, what exactly is going to be provided to gay couples to help them get children which they are not already entitled to in law.
“,So what,there are plenty of forms of stigmatisation out there that children are exposed to so another one wont matter.”
So you did read by response to stigamtisation fear-then ignored it reapeatedly. That seems standard for a free thinker like yourself.
Again, are you going to try an eliminate all possible causes of stigamatisation, or is there a reason same sex parenting and only same sex parenting is a possible a sitgma which must be stopp? In your answer, please you might also like to reflect the study that showed no long term developmental damage to having parents of the same sex, despite bullying being recorded at age 10.
“but he fails to mention she is a lesbian with a family,which is the truth.”
I’ve actually posted 4 articles, all saying the same thing, one coming from the American Academy of Pediatrics-are they all lesbians too? The entire Academy?
And do you have any problem with the research methdology you are ferring to,hber conclusions, or the results analysed-or is it just a case that she’s a lesbian and disagrees with you that means you ignore everything her study showed?
It begs the question-what would you accept nifty as challenging infromation-something that disagreed with yuor view? We’ve already been aware that you won’t accept questions of yuor belief system, and now you won’t accept research which challenges your fears and contradicts your expectations. So what evidence would you accept which demonstrates that same sex parenting prodcues no more risks for long term developmental problems than heterosexual parenting?
Or is it a case that you’re a free thinker, but refuse to accept anything that contradicts your thoughts. If that’s the case you better get some bigger blinkers-you’re going to need to shut out a lot of things in the future.
Yeah i’m not so sure about the studies. We have friends who have a young boy who was teased at school because mum was a dyke and ended up chaging schools. Kids can be nasty to other kids like that. Some gay people do have children, but they are a minority, and it’s not the ideal. and nearly always they have both their biological parents involved in the upbringing not just some friend who has decided to act as the sperm donor for a lesbian couple.
For couples like myself children is not the hidden agender. Unfortunately I don’t have control over the whole gay community, and now transgender people are even being grouped with us as if we are some types of freaks. We are just normal people in same sex relationships..
“We have friends who have a young boy who was teased at school because mum was a dyke and ended up chaging schools. ”
Carol-did bullying only exist among children of gay parents, or does bullying exist separately to that?
Bullying will exist with or without same sex parenting. If we are saying bullying is a reason to stop same sex parenting, surely all factors that could possibly lead to bullying should be stopped-such as red heads, mixed race parenting, any difference whatosever.
Also, is the bullying far worse than the effcts of drug and alcohol addiction, domestic violence, or sexual abuse? Because we don’t have any restriction on heterosexual parents prior to having a child, including for checking for a history of any of these things, so if same sex parenting is so bad that it needs to be restricted, it would have to be worse than an abusive, or drug addicted couple.
Incidentally, one personal experience is not as significant as a large sample based study. Therefore research showing no long term issues due to bullying is a bit more representative than one experience you’ve seen that you haven’t seen the long term effects of.
After all, there are some gay people who shouldn’t get married, just as there are some straight people who shouldn’t get married, for whatever reason. How would you like it if people used one example of a gay person who shouldn’t ever be married (For problems with violence, or commitment issues or something like that) to justify condemning all gay marriage?
Because as you know, that’s the exact thing that happens already. And it’s not particularly nice.
I see what you are saying there are dead beat straight couples with kids who probably shouldn’t be parents, but are you suggesting there are less dead beat or drug taking people in the gay community? If you are I will fully take that as a complement. I think though there would be no difference.
The thing that conserns me is a girl growing up without a female figure, a boy growing up without a father figure. Surely we can both agree that single parents of either gender is not ideal. It’s better to have both genders involved in child raring. That’s why i’m not intetestef in children, I just don’t think it’sfair
“are you suggesting there are less dead beat or drug taking people in the gay community?”
Not at all. My point was we do not have any restriction on heterosexual couples. None at all. But you’re saying there should be restrictions on homosexual couples-regardless of their concerns, or lack thereof. If we have no problem with any heterosexual couple having children no matter their problems, but do have problems with any homosexual couples having children no matter their lack of problems, it suggests that the sexuality alone is a bigger risk to children’s upbringing than everything a heterosexual couple may have.
One thing that actually works in a child’s favour when it comes to having homosexual parents, of course, is that children are far more likely to be prepared for. Because “accidental pregnancies” are not exactly common in the homosexual community, a same-sex couple would have had more chance to prepare for a child emotionally, in terms of their life style, and financially. And as I work with kids from a low SES status, I can tell you the worse thing for kids isn’t whether or not they have a mum or a dad, but when those parents haven’t had the time to become parents.
“Surely we can both agree that single parents of either gender is not ideal.”
But a same sex couple is not the same as a single parent. A meta analysis of 33 studies in 2010 found that parental gender had no bearing on childhood development-with the key factors being resources and childcare commitments. A dual parent of either sexuality can provide more resources than a single parent, or parents that are disengaged with children. (Source:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/16/gay-parents-better-than-straights_n_1208659.html)
We do not check the finances of prospective parents before they have children, nor check that both the father and the mother are interested in playing an active part in raising the chil.d No one is calling for that, despite these being main determining factors in children’s development outlook. But you and nifty would like same-sex couples to be prevented in having children, and only that factor. Why?
“That’s why i’m not intetestef in children, I just don’t think it’sfair”
To misquote a movie-you say the word “Fair” so much, I wonder what your comparison is. Similar to your use of selfish previously.
Like I said, we have no restriction on heterosexual parents-none at all. Regardless of whether it’s fair for the child to grow up in that home, whether the child was made for selfish reasons. But you and nifty both want restrictions on same sex parenting-why is that? How is same sex parenting generally worse than heterosexual parenting-when all the studies I’ve provided show no difference.
Well ultimately thats going to be something for adoption agencies to decide. Usually you need to show a stable environment. I don’t believe in gay couples adopting. I am not the average lesbian either.i am still attracted to men, I have just fallen in love with a woman. She is the only woman I have ever been sexually active with. So not all lesbians are like what you see on tv.
“Well ultimately thats going to be something for adoption agencies to decide.”
Well, adoption is kinda rare in Australia at the moment, outside of family loss (In which case adoption tends to be in-family).
” Usually you need to show a stable environment.”
Can we agree stability is more important than the sexuality of the parents?
” I don’t believe in gay couples adopting.”
Why? Why when there was plenty of data showing no harm to children in having parents of the same gender?
” I am not the average lesbian either.i am still attracted to men,”
What does that have to do with anything?
“So not all lesbians are like what you see on tv.”
Who’s talking about TV? I’m talking about research studies, and nifty’s apparent belief he will somehow organise gay marriage while banning gay marriage.
Anyway, back to my key point again:
We have no restriction on heterosexual parents-none at all. Regardless of whether it’s fair for the child to grow up in that home, whether the child was made for selfish reasons. But you and nifty both want restrictions on same sex parenting-why is that? How is same sex parenting generally worse than heterosexual parenting-when all the studies I’ve provided show no difference.
You see,as soon as somebody mentions a valid concern JM starts on the shifting ground roundabout tallking about redheads, bullying,race,blond kids,fat kids, etc in an attempt to ameliorate the very concern that is raised.One more reason for stigmatisation,is not a good thing,surely, and they,the homosexual marriage proponents towards this end,(ie kids) need to address if they wish to proceed.It is no use copping out by using some sort of relativity argument .They have no concrete answer and I will repeat.Children should not be the cannon fodder for change.Carol can see this,why cant you JM?
As soon as someone asks nifty a valid question, he ignores it.
“One more reason for stigmatisation,is not a good thing,surely,”
But you’re not trying to stop all forms of stigamtisation-you’re only trying to stop same sex parenting, right? Why is that? Why is same sex parenting any more stigmatising than any other source of bullying?
And shouldn’t we be working on stopping the bullying, rather than stopping the difference among children? I mean, even if same sex parenting ceased to exist, you’d still have bullyign, and presumably nifty would want to stop that bullying through working with bullies, rather than working with remove all points of difference with the kids. Why not start with working with the bullies then?
“and they,the homosexual marriage proponents towards this end,(ie kids) need to address if they wish to proceed.”
Again, yet another time, if a gay couple wants to have kids, they can have kids right now. What legal avenues open up with marriage for a gay couple that they cannot already get for a de facto relationship?
Those against homosexual marriage, particularly you, need to explain how children are somehow more able to exist through marriage, if you intend to continue using children as a reason to ban gay marriage?
“Children should not be the cannon fodder for change.”
How is this line any different than lines use to stop mixed race parenting? I’m asking you nifty because presumably children would be just as stigamtised, especially in the past, for having parents from two different ethnicities? Are you against that too-or is that a stigmatisation which is okay to you?
“Carol can see this,why cant you JM?”
Because Carol is basing her view on one experience, you are basing your belief on, I don’t know, the works of Andrew Bolt. I’m basing my experience on multiple positive experiences, and a large study into the effects of same sex parenting on children.
But, hey, if you’ve got evidence that the bullying created by having same sex parenting is any worse or with longer lasting effects than any other type of bullying which you are not suggesting we prevent by removing the point of stigma among the children, then please, go ahead and provide it.
But we both know you don’t have any evidence, because if you had it, you would have demonstrated it already.
And to demonstrate how much nifty wants a discussion, a debate on these issues, and how much he;s willing to discuss these issues, here are the 38 questions nifty refuses to answer. Why? Because apparently he likes debate, as long as it comes in the form of “Everything yuo say is correct-nifty”
1. Wait, you think it would be better for child to grow up in a situation where their parents do not love each other, do not feel attracted to each other and have never been attracted to each other, than to have two parents of the same gender.
2. As I’ve said before, kids can be stigmatised for having two parents of different races, of only have one parent, lots of reasons.
So, do we either remove all points of difference among children, to make one uniform clone race? Or do we instead trying and stop bullying by punishing the bully, rather than subtly suggest “Well, if you weren’t so different, you wouldn’t get bullied, so it’s kinda your fault”?
Or in other words-if you are wanting to ban gay marriage due to a fear of stigmatisation of children, why not ban all possible things that will lead to stigmatisation?
3. “I repeat: Children should not be the cannon fodder for change.”
Couldn’t this exact same line be used to ban mixed race marriage?
4. So let’s talk about the risks. Science and research says there are no more risks for gay parenting than straight parenting. Do you want to talk more about this? Or are you going to deny it because it doesn’t fit into your theory?
5. Still waiting on nifty to explain hbow he is going to help Carol get married without allowing marriage. I’m really looking forward to this.
6. For the umpteenth time, how are children the hidden agenda when gay parents who chose to do so are having children right now.
7. What avenues to having children would marriage provide which is not already provided legally in Australia already? Considering gay partnerships are eligible to de facto recognition, and de facto has the right to most of the things marriage provides in Australia, what exactly is going to be provided to gay couples to help them get children which they are not already entitled to in law.
8. I’ve actually posted 4 articles, all saying the same thing, one coming from the American Academy of Pediatrics-are they all lesbians too? The entire Academy?
9. It begs the question-what would you accept nifty as challenging infromation-something that disagreed with yuor view? We’ve already been aware that you won’t accept questions of yuor belief system, and now you won’t accept research which challenges your fears and contradicts your expectations. So what evidence would you accept which demonstrates that same sex parenting prodcues no more risks for long term developmental problems than heterosexual parenting?
10. Says who? The Bible who goes through multiple forms of marriage in the old testament alone?
Also, if it’s for the benefit of children, are infertile or sterile couples allowed to marry? Also, are single parents allowed to keep care of their children?
11. Wait, so the reason gay people can’t complain about civil rights is “Countries elsewhere have fewer rights”?
Are we allowed to dismiss all social issues as well nifty? “Well, the rate of sexual assault in this country is high, but not as high as in other countries, so before you start complaining about rapists in Australia, you should go overseas an complain there”
12. Well, I put it to you, if gay marriage is such a concern to you nifty, why aren’t you going to preach to England, France, South Africa, Canada, various states in the US, etc?
13. “if homosexuality is so mainstream why do you refer to them as a “Community””
Community isn’t mainstream anymore? I refer to the Christian community, the conservative community, the Asian community, the female community-you’re imagining and redefining words again.
Also, these murders, some as recent as the lates 90′s-never happened:
15. Opinions can be wrong, when their based on inaccuracies, or in your case, ignorance of reality. For instance, if someone were to punch you, and say that didn’t hurt you, you would disagree with their opinion, right?
Or would you accept their view that their punch didnt hurt you?
16. Right, so to be clear, Hating gay people for wanting equal rights, calling them abnormal, wrong, and implying a danger to children is not bigotry-hating someone for have a hateful opinion is bigotry.
Do you honestly believe that, or is it just something you use so you hope people will stop being angry at you? I mean, if someone walked up to you and said “I hate you, and I hope you and everyone you love dies-but don’t hate me, that’s just me opinion, and if you hate me it’s bigotry”-would you not even dislike that person?
17. You welcome a debate, but when presented with a debate refuse to answer questions about your beliefs. Why is that?
18. “Homosexuals are themselves homophobic otherwise they would never want marriage.”
Weren’t you just complaining about a lack of logic a while ago? I see no logic in this statement at all.
19. You said that a child needs a mogther and a father-both. So if a child definitely needs a mother and a father, which is your reason to not allow gay parenting, how is single parenting okay?
20. the gay population of Australia is higher than the Aboriginal population of Australia. Should Aborigines not be allowed to have civil rights or the right to get married? Because if your argument is “Well, there’s not that many so they don’t deserve rights because of that” – then there’s a lot of groups in Australia who are smaller than the homosexual population.
21. If you don’t have a problem with homosexuals, who you accuse of having a secret agenda, and should not be allowed with children-how do you act around someone you do have a quarrel with?
22. “.The fact that homosexuals do not want a referendum is that they KNOW the silent majority ”
How do you know you are a part of the majority? Again, if you’ve got better evidence, please present it.
23. Incidentally, isn’t it Tony Abbot who has recently softened his opinion on gay marriage from “We believe marriage must be between a man and a woman” to “We will discuss the possibility of gay marriage within the party room after the election?
Why the softening neville? I mean, if all of Australia opposes gay marriage, if it’s a hardcore belief of the party-why the softening from “Nope, never ever”: to “Maybe, we’ll think about it”?
24. So a community that is already at risk of being beaten, assaulted, or killed by some ignorant people would be portrayed in a referendum as “Evil” “Threats” and “Attacking your religion”-how safe would that make a gay person feel in Australia?
25. So, do we either remove all points of difference among children, to make one uniform clone race? Or do we instead trying and stop bullying by punishing the bully, rather than subtly suggest “Well, if you weren’t so different, you wouldn’t get bullied, so it’s kinda your fault”?
26. Why don’t you? Marriage has changed so often its definition, if you want marriage to be an exclusive club that doesn’t allow gay people, why don’t you come up with a new name to define your super duper relationship that gay people aren’t allowed to join?
27. Just to be clear, are you saying all heterosexual couples would make better parents than all gay couples?
28. People were using virtually the same arguments as you are using now 50 years ago to decry and complain about interracial marriage. What makes your stand against gay marriage so much more enlightened, and not something we’ll all look back in embarrassment over 50 years ago?
29, Again, if this is the true secret intentions, and all gay people want is to have kids….why don’t they just have kids?
30. So, you believe if you are a small minority you’re not allowed to celebrate who you are, and have to live in denial about this?
Have you told the Indian population of Australia this? “You’re not allowed to celebrate your nationality, culture or religion, because you’re a minority in this country and it annoys me”?
What about the Aboriginal population: “You’re not allowed to have special celebrations of who you are because you’re a minority in this country”
I can’t wait to see how it goes!
31. Oh, so gay people aren’t allowed to celebrate who they are because it annoys you and people you know.
Neville, you annoy me, and people I know. Am I allowed to request you stop celebrating your bigotry and conservatism and waving your intolerant views around like a flag? If you’re allowed to complain about gay people exercising their free speech, surely I’m allowed to complain about you exercising your free speech.
32. ” Explain. I dont celebrate who I am,what for?”
Oh, don’t you? I mean, I celebrate my religion multiple times a year, my nationality at many different occasions, my sexuality and my relationship at my wedding, anniversary, valentine’s day…..you don’t do any of that?
33. Considering the majority of people in Australia support gay marriage, and you think normal is the majority, does this make you abnormal?
34. if you’ve got a source of a child complaining about their parents being gay, and saying “I wish I had never been born, because it would have been better I never excisted than having two parents of the same gender” please present it.
Oh, you don’t? If you don’t have evidence that children with same sex parents are not in anyway angry that their parents are gay, and preferring to not exist than to have gay parents, then you have no basis for complaint.
35. Now have you actually ever met a real gay person, or a child raised by a gay person or couple.
36. Again, the word bent came around as a word to insult gay people. Straight turned up in response to that. Bent has since been reclaimed.
But to be clear, are you saying gay is wrong “Because the word I’ve invented to describe them is negative”?
37. Ah, so sex that involves anything other than penis in vagina is unnatural now? Firstly, does this mean all other sexual behaviour, including a lot of heterosexual sex acts are unnatural, unless they are penis in vagina? If so, I’m guessing unnatural is going to the norm.
38. Also, if homosexual sex (Because that’s what your implying) is unnatural….how come it turns up all the time in nature? I mean, seriously, if it’s unnatural, surely we shouldn’t be seeing it in 100+ different species of animals, including highly intelligent animals such as dolphins.
38 Questions! 38! I could write a book on the questions you refuse to answer, the evidence you refuse to accept.
And you like to say you’re a person who wants debate. How do you want debate when you refuse to actually consider any points that challenge your view, and any evidence that contradicts how you want reality to be? What form would you accept debate, accept disagreement? I don’t see anyway you could do it.
Poor old JM, he has gone from the roundabout to the Gee Whizzer.
Poor old nifty-he likes to think of himself as a free thinker, but ignores any questions, any evidence, and any aspect of reality which challenges his view.
He likes to think he accepts other views, and is noit a bigot, but really can only accept discussion, let alone opinion, if it comes in the form of unqualified agreement.
He fears questions, fears thinking abotu his view because if he’s wrong in his view about an entire community of people he has no contact with, what else may he have mistaken assumptions about? He hopes he will never know.
I always wonder why people oppose gays. I honestly think the best thing for Nifty to do would be to meet some gay men and have a bit of fun with them. It doesn’t mean you’re gay, you can have sex with a man once or twice, it doesn’t mean you are gay. Men have given blow jobs to other men and continued neing straight. Women kissing other women or group masturbation. It called trying something new. Doesn’t mean you are gay. You should open your mind a bit more nifty.
I have a question for you Nifty. Would you have sex with a lesbian couple? I’m guessing the answer would be yes. You more than likely watch this porn, but still oppose gays.
Carol I dont watch lesbian porn,and as far as having sex with lesbians,they would have to be bisexual to willingly consent,so thats not a problem.That would be fun.I don’t oppose Homosexuality,it is the way you are made.You know my fears.Carol.Its the children thing.But as far as having fun with “Gay” men,no thats not my bent.Good try.
Nifty, you previously called homosexuality unnatural. (Back when you were calling yourself Neville for some reason).
Now you are saying you don’t oppose Homosexuality, and that’s the way a person is made.
Please tell me how you rationalise those two beliefs in your mind
So I’m just wondering why you seem to be less harsh on lesbians than homosexual men? I find it hard to believe that you have not seen Lesbian or “bisexual” porn nifty. I’m trying to get you to open your mind to accept gays. I know your stance on gays and children, and it’s similar to mine, but I feel that you should at least open your mind to be more accepting of gays. I was just having a joke with the have some fun with some gay men. In all seriousness though, a little fun does not mean that you are gay, and gay people do become bi or more straight oriented. It’s all personal choice.
Well JM I will put it another way Homsexuals are an aberration of nature,nonetheless to themselves alone they feel perfectly normal,as I understand it and Carol is wrong,I do accept Homosexuals but not to the extent that you both consider I should ie Marriage,etc.
I really don’t understand what harm can come from allowing same sex marriages. I think the people who are so opposed to it, or opposed to any group or person who is different to themselves, has genuine inferiority issues. They need to put down anyone that is not like them, and dismiss their life or culture, to validate their own. It’s sickeningly self-delusional.
you said it... 
Its interesting that somebody made the comment which referred to straight couples.What would be the antonym expression to that ? Would it be bent? Would it be crooked?I cant think,in the context of the subject a non pejorative opposite for straight,Please,somebody tell. As far as homophobia is concerned,it is the homosexuals that have the homophobia,otherwise they would not not persist in demanding those who dont really want to KNOW about their personal life style the right to marry.I would welcome a referendum on their right to marry.Amazingly,the prime mover homosexual political lobbyists dont want this!They claim that big money would be spent in advertising against homosexual marriage.What! Where is the honesty in that.This marriage push by homosexuals is all about the legal right to adopt,or to manufacture kids.They claim,that to deny them the right to marry is an infringement of their human rights.What about the rights of the children that they plan to concoct by any means,dont they have a right to a mother,or a father?Children should not be the cannon fodder for change,and if that is homophobic,count me in
“to manufacture kids” – Errr…so what is IVF or sperm donation then?
So what about kids who have one deceased parent, like so many brought up in WWII?
You know children who were victims of forced adoption or who were part of the Stolen Generations were denied their real parents by the very people who now have the same attitude to same sex couples as you have.
Many children are successfully raised by single parents or by a parent and step-parent. Many children are raised by grandparents, aunts and uncles or by older siblings.
It is not the marital status or the sexuality of the parents which matters it is the quality of care.
I actually agree with you on this one. For a complete fruitcake, you’re alright.
Gay people are having children. They are having children right now, at this very moment. You can’t stop a couple from having children if they really really want to-there are many ways to make this happen without adoption, or even IVF.
Giving them the right to marry does not effect this in the slightest.
Incidentally, the reason why those who want gay marriage object to the idea of a referendum is because, as I’m sure you know, referendums are not a matter of “What the majority of the country thinks”-it’s “What the majority of people in the majority of each state and territory in Australia thinks”-it’s part of the reason why referendums have traditionally failed (I believe only 4 in history have ever passed).
And not only that, to have a referendum you would have a lot of negative advertising. I remember the 1999 referendum on a republic-still remember the “No” theme song because it was on TV everyday. At least this time it wasn’t a threat to Republican supporters-no monarchists going around beating up republicans. Take a look at the ads in America calling for votes against gay marriage. It’s not “We oppose gay marriage because….” because really, there’s no reason to object to two people of the same gender-you yourself can only come up with “But…think of the children” which is fairly irrelevant. Instead you get “There’s an attack on your religion” “A storm is coming” “Your religion is being taken away….by the gays”
So a community that is already at risk of being beaten, assaulted, or killed by some ignorant people are now portrayed as “Evil” “Threats” and “Attacking your religion”-how safe would that make a gay person feel in Australia?
And for your knowledge, gay people have a beautiful habit of reclaiming words, particularly previously offensive word. Hell, gay was originally an offensive term, and now the homophobes are complaining “It’s our word meaning happy! Give it back!” So bent is sometimes used, though queer is far more popular. But generally, wait around and whatever word you come up to define homosexuals and knock them down, wait about 10 years and in most cases it’ll be the name of a nightclub.
I asked why homosexuals refer to hetrosexuals as Straight?,in the sense that the word begs a antonym I cannot find one that is not pejorative.
My thesaurus says words like: deceitful,dishonest,changing,unfair,twisted,broken,disorderly,etc.Now most homosexuals would see that opposite as pejorative.So do I.
Nope,the hidden agenda.That says it all.Imagine some kid dropped off to a public school.say, second year high school age, by two embracing dads.Immediately,that kid is stigmatised,and nothing you proponents out there can say will alter that reality.Love just aint everything.Marriage is our territory,invent your own word,we dont care what you do in the privacy of your own lifestyle,just dont inflict it on the innocents.Homosexuals are normal to themselves,I accept that,but to gain ,full societal recognition, numbering only 3% of the population? Isn’t that the tail trying to wag the dog? Join the Greens.
People were saying that shit about interracial marriages 50 years ago. In a few years you’ll probably look as stupid as they do now.
“Immediately,that kid is stigmatised,and nothing you proponents out there can say will alter that reality.”
So the reason you oppose gay marriage isn’t because any bias against gay people, it’s the fear that by allowing gay marriage, gay people will have children (Which they already do). And even then, it’s not that gay people can’t be good parents, it’s the problem that they’ll be stigamtised by other children.
It’s true, this could happen. Children can be cruel. They can definitely target another child for having parents of the same gender.
They can also do this if a child has parents of different races. Shall we ban mixed race marriage while we’re banning same sex marriage?
Children can also be targeted for having red hair? Will red headed people now be banned from having children?
They can also target a child if they are fat, thin, short, tall, freckly, virtually everything can be used as a target to stigmatise a child on.
So, do we either remove all points of difference among children, to make one uniform clone race? Or do we instead trying and stop bullying by punishing the bully, rather than subtly suggest “Well, if you weren’t so different, you wouldn’t get bullied, so it’s kinda your fault”?
“Marriage is our territory,”
As a married man, I am totally happy for gay people to marry. In fact, I’m really sad that I won’t get to see some of my best friends not being able to enjoy the same commitment and union that I have with my wife.
“,invent your own word”
Why don’t you? Marriage has changed so often its definition, if you want marriage to be an exclusive club that doesn’t allow gay people, why don’t you come up with a new name to define your super duper relationship that gay people aren’t allowed to join?
“we dont care what you do in the privacy of your own lifestyle,just dont inflict it on the innocents”
How exactly is homosexuality being “inflicted” on the innocent?
“Homosexuals are normal to themselves,I accept that,but to gain ,full societal recognition, numbering only 3% of the population? ”
So now you’re saying that gay people shouldn’t have full legal recognition because they make up a small minority of the population?
Okay, at what point does a population receive full legal rights? I mean, if your argument is “3% isn’t enough-so we get to class them as second class citizens” do we also say Aborigines don’t deserve full societal recognition as they only make up around 2.3% of the population? The illeterate make up around 1% of the population as well-they’re second class citizens too according to yuor rules.
No, of course not. Your argument is essentially “Gay people can’t get married because I don’t like gay people” but keep on trying to come up with rules to define why they can’t.
But for your ease, I’ll simplify exactly why the arguments are wrong:
-“Gay people can’t get married because if they do they’ll have kids” – Gay people who choose to already have children.
-“Gay people can’t have kids because that kid will be treated badly by others for having gay parents” – Children can be treated badly by others for all sorts of reasons, and trying to eliminate all those reasons would result in creating a clone race.
-“Gay people can’t get married because they only make up a tiny percentage of the population so therefore do not deserve full societal recognition” – The gay population that you have provided is greater than the proportion of Aboriginal people in Australia-if you are saying that gay people do not deserve full societal recognition due to their proportion in the population, you are also saying Aboriginal people do not deserve full societal recognition.
I think the average kid in this day and age brought up on an educated household wouldn’t give two shits if schoolmates parents are of the same sex.
So JM, If the right to homosexual marriage,is supported by the majority of Australians.(according to homosexual propoganda)it is interesting to note how NONE of the politicians ie Labor and Greens are promoting it right now a week before the elections Further on the subject of children,a mum and a dad is preferable.Who in their right mind would want to give a child a bum steer .And Sott,it isn’t shit…………it is a point of view!Bigot.
“)it is interesting to note how NONE of the politicians”
You didn’t watch the news today, did you? Kevin Rudd just launched an uplifting support of gay marriage on Q&A, a comment which has since gone viral.
“Further on the subject of children,a mum and a dad is preferable.Who in their right mind would want to give a child a bum steer .”
Just to be clear, are you saying all heterosexual couples would make better parents than all gay couples? Just be clear about this-because we do not test straight couples to see if they’ll make suitable parents, we do not try and make rules to limit heterosexual couples from being parents at all. Yet you want to try and limit gay couples from having children (Which is in no way prevented or reduced by marriage)-so naturally you’ll have evidence that every single gay couple is a greater risk for children growing up than every single heterosexual couple if you want to limit only gay parents, and not any other group in society.
“And Sott,it isn’t shit…………it is a point of view!Bigot.”
Respond to his point, neville. Don’t just ignore it because he’s actually challenging your processes.
People were using virtually the same arguments as you are using now 50 years ago to decry and complain about interracial marriage. What makes your stand against gay marriage so much more enlightened, and not something we’ll all look back in embarrassment over 50 years ago?
In the end it comes down to people minding their own business. Who cares who wants to marry and have kids. Let people do what they like and get on with their lives and stop interfering. Just cause something is your opinion doesn’t make it fact.
Militant, politically savvy homosexuals have made this issue so controversial.First,they have been dishonest in not revealing their true intentions why they want legal marriage(kids) and secondly,they are a small minority who want to wave their sexuality,like a flag,which annoys the living daylights out of people like myself. I accept them as people,and I have no problem with the fact that they are different.
Then leave them alone. They are not bothering you.
What about Joseph Fritzel? Great dad, always knew where his kids were.
“First,they have been dishonest in not revealing their true intentions why they want legal marriage(kids)”
Again, if this is the true secret intentions, and all gay people want is to have kids….why don’t they just have kids?
Come on neville, you ignored this many times over now. If a gay couple wants to have a child there are many many avenues that they can pursue right now, at this moment, that are perfectly legal (especially if the couple are lesbians). How can the ultimate aim of gay marriage be having kids when gay couples can already have children?
“secondly,they are a small minority who want to wave their sexuality,like a flag,”
So, you believe if you are a small minority you’re not allowed to celebrate who you are, and have to live in denial about this?
Have you told the Indian population of Australia this? “You’re not allowed to celebrate your nationality, culture or religion, because you’re a minority in this country and it annoys me”?
What about the Aboriginal population: “You’re not allowed to have special celebrations of who you are because you’re a minority in this country”
I can’t wait to see how it goes!
“which annoys the living daylights out of people like myself.”
Oh, so gay people aren’t allowed to celebrate who they are because it annoys you and people you know.
Neville, you annoy me, and people I know. Am I allowed to request you stop celebrating your bigotry and conservatism and waving your intolerant views around like a flag? If you’re allowed to complain about gay people exercising their free speech, surely I’m allowed to complain about you exercising your free speech.
” I accept them as people,and I have no problem with the fact that they are different.”
You just think there’s something intrinsically wrong with them, and that if they have kids they will be worse parents than EVERY SINGLE HETEROSEXUAL COUPLE in the world (Again, as we do not try in any way to limit or even discourage any heterosexual couples from having children, but you seem to think we need to stop or limit all homosexual couples from having children).
Hate to go to extremes here, but according to this theory if Ivan Milat found himself a nice woman and they made a baby together on a conjugal visit-would you think that union would be a safer and happier place for a child to grow up than my manager who has raised his daughter with his male partner for 15 years now?
Hey JM what do you mean by Celebrate who they are ? Explain. I dont celebrate who I am,what for?How ridiculous that is.You give a childish example of a convicted mass murderer who is in jail,etc,how inane.All I can say as far as your manager is concerned is, I wonder whether his daughter in some quiet moment wished that she had a mum.Have you a mum, JM?.
“Hey JM what do you mean by Celebrate who they are ?”
I mean that when people around the world say that what you are is evil, sinful, that you should be cured by being beaten, raped, or murdered, when entire religions and countries have laws in place to punish you for who you are, having a place where who you are is something seen as normal and great is necessary and beneficial to the entire community.
” Explain. I dont celebrate who I am,what for?”
Oh, don’t you? I mean, I celebrate my religion multiple times a year, my nationality at many different occasions, my sexuality and my relationship at my wedding, anniversary, valentine’s day…..you don’t do any of that?
“You give a childish example of a convicted mass murderer who is in jail,etc,how inane.”
And you don’t answer the question. So I’ll ask you again:
Hate to go to extremes here, but according to this theory if Ivan Milat found himself a nice woman and they made a baby together on a conjugal visit-would you think that union would be a safer and happier place for a child to grow up than my manager who has raised his daughter with his male partner for 15 years now?
“All I can say as far as your manager is concerned is, I wonder whether his daughter in some quiet moment wished that she had a mum.”
She’s very happy. A friend of mine who has gay parents is very happy. But please, if you’ve got a source of a child complaining about their parents being gay, and saying “I wish I had never been born, because it would have been better I never excisted than having two parents of the same gender” please present it.
Oh, you don’t? If you don’t have evidence that children with same sex parents are not in anyway angry that their parents are gay, and preferring to not exist than to have gay parents, then you have no basis for complaint.
“Have you a mum, JM?.”
Yes, and a Dad. Now have you actually ever met a real gay person, or a child raised by a gay person or couple.
Now, since I’ve asked all your questions-do you mind answering mine:
1. So a community that is already at risk of being beaten, assaulted, or killed by some ignorant people are now portrayed as “Evil” “Threats” and “Attacking your religion”-how safe would that make a gay person feel in Australia?
2. So, do we either remove all points of difference among children, to make one uniform clone race? Or do we instead trying and stop bullying by punishing the bully, rather than subtly suggest “Well, if you weren’t so different, you wouldn’t get bullied, so it’s kinda your fault”?
3. “,invent your own word”
Why don’t you? Marriage has changed so often its definition, if you want marriage to be an exclusive club that doesn’t allow gay people, why don’t you come up with a new name to define your super duper relationship that gay people aren’t allowed to join?
4. So now you’re saying that gay people shouldn’t have full legal recognition because they make up a small minority of the population?
Okay, at what point does a population receive full legal rights? I mean, if your argument is “3% isn’t enough-so we get to class them as second class citizens” do we also say Aborigines don’t deserve full societal recognition as they only make up around 2.3% of the population? The illeterate make up around 1% of the population as well-they’re second class citizens too according to yuor rules.
5. Just to be clear, are you saying all heterosexual couples would make better parents than all gay couples?
6. People were using virtually the same arguments as you are using now 50 years ago to decry and complain about interracial marriage. What makes your stand against gay marriage so much more enlightened, and not something we’ll all look back in embarrassment over 50 years ago?
7. Again, if this is the true secret intentions, and all gay people want is to have kids….why don’t they just have kids?
8. Come on neville, you ignored this many times over now. If a gay couple wants to have a child there are many many avenues that they can pursue right now, at this moment, that are perfectly legal (especially if the couple are lesbians). How can the ultimate aim of gay marriage be having kids when gay couples can already have children?
9. So, you believe if you are a small minority you’re not allowed to celebrate who you are, and have to live in denial about this?
Have you told the Indian population of Australia this? “You’re not allowed to celebrate your nationality, culture or religion, because you’re a minority in this country and it annoys me”?
What about the Aboriginal population: “You’re not allowed to have special celebrations of who you are because you’re a minority in this country”
I can’t wait to see how it goes!
10. Oh, so gay people aren’t allowed to celebrate who they are because it annoys you and people you know.
Neville, you annoy me, and people I know. Am I allowed to request you stop celebrating your bigotry and conservatism and waving your intolerant views around like a flag? If you’re allowed to complain about gay people exercising their free speech, surely I’m allowed to complain about you exercising your free speech.
11. Considering the majority of people in Australia support gay marriage, and you think normal is the majority, does this make you abnormal?
And again, the summary of your arguments:
-”Gay people can’t get married because if they do they’ll have kids” – Gay people who choose to already have children.
-”Gay people can’t have kids because that kid will be treated badly by others for having gay parents” – Children can be treated badly by others for all sorts of reasons, and trying to eliminate all those reasons would result in creating a clone race.
-”Gay people can’t get married because they only make up a tiny percentage of the population so therefore do not deserve full societal recognition” – The gay population that you have provided is greater than the proportion of Aboriginal people in Australia-if you are saying that gay people do not deserve full societal recognition due to their proportion in the population, you are also saying Aboriginal people do not deserve full societal recognition.
-Homosexuality is wrong because it’s unnatural
If it’s unnatural, why does it occur a lot in nature?
-Homosexuality is wrong because the words I used to describe it is wrong
Don’t use those words to describe it then.
The very definition of straight for heterosexuals,(,A term used by homosexuals), implies a recognisanse difference that has a resonance amongst their ownn ilk,
So what are, or who are they?These weirdos.Who use this term?
Bent? warped? Crooked?distorted?
How dare they call people,who are sexually as nature intended the species (Penis in Vagina)anything other than normal,,
Striaght is used by straight people as well. It rolls off the tongue easier than heterosexual.
“So what are, or who are they?These weirdos.Who use this term?
Bent? warped? Crooked?distorted?”
Again, the word bent came around as a word to insult gay people. Straight turned up in response to that. Bent has since been reclaimed.
But to be clear, are you saying gay is wrong “Because the word I’ve invented to describe them is negative”?
“How dare they call people,who are sexually as nature intended the species (Penis in Vagina)anything other than normal,,”
Ah, so sex that involves anything other than penis in vagina is unnatural now? Firstly, does this mean all other sexual behaviour, including a lot of heterosexual sex acts are unnatural, unless they are penis in vagina? If so, I’m guessing unnatural is going to the norm.
Also, if homosexual sex (Because that’s what your implying) is unnatural….how come it turns up all the time in nature? I mean, seriously, if it’s unnatural, surely we shouldn’t be seeing it in 100+ different species of animals, including highly intelligent animals such as dolphins.
The reason we don’t use the word “normal” for heterosexual is the same reason we don’t use the word normal for white people, christians, males, right handed people, brown headed people etc. Normal is only used as a word to make others feel bad, to insult others, to make clear people know they are the minority, they are diverting from what they were meant to be, they are disturbing a perfectly fine society which didn’t involve them.
That’s why. Now how dare you call people you know nothing about as unnatural.
Hey J.M, I will say what I like…..Write to Tony Abbott and ask what he thinks about homosexual marriage and the adoption of kids.He will understand,as he has a lesbian sister.Go on give him a try.,Surely he will think that my views are out of line.
Or will he?Have you heard of the word Zeitgeist?Look it up.I think Abbott paraphrased that a week or so ago.Very interesting the Zeitgeist.
“Hey J.M, I will say what I like…..”
Great. As will I. And as will homosexuals.
Now you seem to think homosexuals can’t say what they like because it offends you, but you can say what you like regardless of whether it offends anyone.
“Write to Tony Abbott and ask what he thinks about homosexual marriage and the adoption of kids.”
Why? I disagree with Tony Abbot on basically everything, so why would I what to dsicuss policy options with him?
Are you about to write to Bob Brown, Wyatt Roy, or Malcolm Turnball to explain about gay marriage?
Incidentally, isn’t it Tony Abbot who has recently softened his opinion on gay marriage from “We believe marriage must be between a man and a woman” to “We will discuss the possibility of gay marriage within the party room after the election?
Why the softening neville? I mean, if all of Australia opposes gay marriage, if it’s a hardcore belief of the party-why the softening from “Nope, never ever”: to “Maybe, we’ll think about it”?
And again, stuff you ignored:
1. So a community that is already at risk of being beaten, assaulted, or killed by some ignorant people are now portrayed as “Evil” “Threats” and “Attacking your religion”-how safe would that make a gay person feel in Australia?
2. So, do we either remove all points of difference among children, to make one uniform clone race? Or do we instead trying and stop bullying by punishing the bully, rather than subtly suggest “Well, if you weren’t so different, you wouldn’t get bullied, so it’s kinda your fault”?
3. “,invent your own word”
Why don’t you? Marriage has changed so often its definition, if you want marriage to be an exclusive club that doesn’t allow gay people, why don’t you come up with a new name to define your super duper relationship that gay people aren’t allowed to join?
4. So now you’re saying that gay people shouldn’t have full legal recognition because they make up a small minority of the population?
Okay, at what point does a population receive full legal rights? I mean, if your argument is “3% isn’t enough-so we get to class them as second class citizens” do we also say Aborigines don’t deserve full societal recognition as they only make up around 2.3% of the population? The illeterate make up around 1% of the population as well-they’re second class citizens too according to yuor rules.
5. Just to be clear, are you saying all heterosexual couples would make better parents than all gay couples?
6. People were using virtually the same arguments as you are using now 50 years ago to decry and complain about interracial marriage. What makes your stand against gay marriage so much more enlightened, and not something we’ll all look back in embarrassment over 50 years ago?
7. Again, if this is the true secret intentions, and all gay people want is to have kids….why don’t they just have kids?
8. Come on neville, you ignored this many times over now. If a gay couple wants to have a child there are many many avenues that they can pursue right now, at this moment, that are perfectly legal (especially if the couple are lesbians). How can the ultimate aim of gay marriage be having kids when gay couples can already have children?
9. So, you believe if you are a small minority you’re not allowed to celebrate who you are, and have to live in denial about this?
Have you told the Indian population of Australia this? “You’re not allowed to celebrate your nationality, culture or religion, because you’re a minority in this country and it annoys me”?
What about the Aboriginal population: “You’re not allowed to have special celebrations of who you are because you’re a minority in this country”
I can’t wait to see how it goes!
10. Oh, so gay people aren’t allowed to celebrate who they are because it annoys you and people you know.
Neville, you annoy me, and people I know. Am I allowed to request you stop celebrating your bigotry and conservatism and waving your intolerant views around like a flag? If you’re allowed to complain about gay people exercising their free speech, surely I’m allowed to complain about you exercising your free speech.
11. Considering the majority of people in Australia support gay marriage, and you think normal is the majority, does this make you abnormal?
12. ” Explain. I dont celebrate who I am,what for?”
Oh, don’t you? I mean, I celebrate my religion multiple times a year, my nationality at many different occasions, my sexuality and my relationship at my wedding, anniversary, valentine’s day…..you don’t do any of that?
13. But please, if you’ve got a source of a child complaining about their parents being gay, and saying “I wish I had never been born, because it would have been better I never excisted than having two parents of the same gender” please present it.
Oh, you don’t? If you don’t have evidence that children with same sex parents are not in anyway angry that their parents are gay, and preferring to not exist than to have gay parents, then you have no basis for complaint.
14. Now have you actually ever met a real gay person, or a child raised by a gay person or couple.
15. Again, the word bent came around as a word to insult gay people. Straight turned up in response to that. Bent has since been reclaimed.
But to be clear, are you saying gay is wrong “Because the word I’ve invented to describe them is negative”?
16. Ah, so sex that involves anything other than penis in vagina is unnatural now? Firstly, does this mean all other sexual behaviour, including a lot of heterosexual sex acts are unnatural, unless they are penis in vagina? If so, I’m guessing unnatural is going to the norm.
17. Also, if homosexual sex (Because that’s what your implying) is unnatural….how come it turns up all the time in nature? I mean, seriously, if it’s unnatural, surely we shouldn’t be seeing it in 100+ different species of animals, including highly intelligent animals such as dolphins.
And again, the summary of your arguments:
-”Gay people can’t get married because if they do they’ll have kids” – Gay people who choose to already have children.
-”Gay people can’t have kids because that kid will be treated badly by others for having gay parents” – Children can be treated badly by others for all sorts of reasons, and trying to eliminate all those reasons would result in creating a clone race.
-”Gay people can’t get married because they only make up a tiny percentage of the population so therefore do not deserve full societal recognition” – The gay population that you have provided is greater than the proportion of Aboriginal people in Australia-if you are saying that gay people do not deserve full societal recognition due to their proportion in the population, you are also saying Aboriginal people do not deserve full societal recognition.
-Homosexuality is wrong because it’s unnatural
If it’s unnatural, why does it occur a lot in nature?
-Homosexuality is wrong because the words I used to describe it is wrong
Don’t use those words to describe it then.
And the new one
-Homosexuality is wrong because I think Tony Abbot thinks it’s wrong.
Tony Abbot isn’t the be all and end all definer of laws, morality and ethics in this country, just as KEvin Rudd wasn’t before him. Also, Abbot has softened his stance of gay marriage, albeit very slightly, so you needto ask yourself why that is?
The bottom line for me is the kids.Nobody on your side has honestly raised the possibility of stigmatisation.Homosexuals are not a disparate group, They are,or it seems to me, they are a community.A child growing up in the sort of community I imagine would do nothing towards alleviating that stigma.I disagree with you on majority support for homosexual marriage,because the real question has never been put,and that question is the foundation for the push towards homosexual marriage.Try a poll on the REAL question.If this change has such a roaring majority try a referendum.
Neville., you might change your name, but you still won’t answer questions.
“A child growing up in the sort of community I imagine would do nothing towards alleviating that stigma.”
So….we shouldn’t allow gay marriage because kids in gay marriages might be stigmatised. Even though gay people are having children without getting married.
So….we shouldn’t allow children in gay marriage because they might be treated badly at school? Are we also going to ban fat kids, short kids, tall kids, kids with freckles, kids from mixed race parents, kids with red hair, kids who are blonde-after all, at a school level all these kids may be bullied because of these things. So are we going to make a clone master race of identitcal children to prevent any difference that may cause bullying, or just try and stop bullies?
“I disagree with you on majority support for homosexual marriage”
Great. Naturally you’ll have evidence that the majority of the country oppose same sex marriage, which counters the following evidence which suggests otherwise:
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/opinion/australians-want-gay-marriage-equality-so-get-it-done/story-e6frfhqf-1226636328949
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/state-politics/poll-shows-support-of-gay-marriage-at-high/story-e6frgczx-1226444286843#mm-premium
Nope?
“.If this change has such a roaring majority try a referendum.”
Already responded to/ Shall I repeat myself:
“Incidentally, the reason why those who want gay marriage object to the idea of a referendum is because, as I’m sure you know, referendums are not a matter of “What the majority of the country thinks”-it’s “What the majority of people in the majority of each state and territory in Australia thinks”-it’s part of the reason why referendums have traditionally failed (I believe only 4 in history have ever passed).
And not only that, to have a referendum you would have a lot of negative advertising. I remember the 1999 referendum on a republic-still remember the “No” theme song because it was on TV everyday. At least this time it wasn’t a threat to Republican supporters-no monarchists going around beating up republicans. Take a look at the ads in America calling for votes against gay marriage. It’s not “We oppose gay marriage because….” because really, there’s no reason to object to two people of the same gender-you yourself can only come up with “But…think of the children” which is fairly irrelevant. Instead you get “There’s an attack on your religion” “A storm is coming” “Your religion is being taken away….by the gays”
So a community that is already at risk of being beaten, assaulted, or killed by some ignorant people are now portrayed as “Evil” “Threats” and “Attacking your religion”-how safe would that make a gay person feel in Australia? ”
Now that I’ve answered all your questions, twice, and you’ve ignored all your answers-mind answering any of my questions?
I can never understand why people say things like Homosexuals should not get married because if the have kids they might get picked on. Who are the people picking on them? creating the stigma? It is people like you and your kids, that is who. If people would stop being homophobic and stop hating people who never did anything to them then maybe people would not pick on those kids. So the real problem is not how same sex couples raise children it is how everyone else does not teach their children to be decent human beings who respect each other. I would much rather a child that has to endure some hardships (as we all do) and stays proud of themselves and their family and grows as a person to be stronger and respects others for who they are than a child that spreads hate and picks on a child for something that has nothing to do with them. Did you ever have to explain your parent’s sex life or genitals to your classmates? If you think it is ok to spread hate through your children and allow them to be hateful and homophobic to others then you are a bad parent and that is something that people should be concerned about not what genitals people have.
Which is what you are discussing. That whole you need a mum and a dad stuff is crap. Why do you? so you have a balance of gender role models? Gender is not the same as sex (the biological state of male or female) gender is a social construct of masculinity and femininity and people can have both regardless of sex. Are you saying that single parents cannot raise a child successfully? Most I know do a great job. So how would having two loving parents ever be a disadvantage. It is far better to have same sex parents than abusive or negligent parents.
Hey Lou.So needing a mum and dad is crap?Which planet are you on?And J.M Im not here to follow your agenda,and answer your questions,and as far as newspaper polls are concerned they are probably stacked with your mates.The fact that homosexuals do not want a referendum is that they KNOW the silent majority who are intimidated by all the political correctness inhibiting them to express how they really feel will simply say no.As the American ethisist Elshtain said in her book Democracy on Trial.”But no one has a civil right,as a gay,a disciple of an exotic religion,or a political dissident,to full public sanction of his or her activities,values,beliefs or habits.To be publicly legitimated,or validated,in ones beliefs or habits may be a political aim,indeed it is the overiding aim of the politics of displacement– but it is hardly a civil right.Parodoxically in his quest to attain sanction for the full range of who he is,the cross dresser,or sadomasochist,the variations are endless,puts his life on display.He opens himself up to publicity in ways that others are bound to find uncivil.” Your sexuality is your business,we do not want to know about it,please.
“Im not here to follow your agenda,”
What Agenda?
“and answer your questions,”
Then why are you here? Are you expecting the right to say whatever you want and not be questioned?
And why not answer questions? If your beliefs are so based on facts and security, couldn’t they’ stand some scrutiny?
“as far as newspaper polls are concerned they are probably stacked with your mates.”
They weren’t newspaper polls. But if you’ve got a better source, please present it. To be honest though, you don’t.
“.The fact that homosexuals do not want a referendum is that they KNOW the silent majority ”
How do you know you are a part of the majority? Again, if you’ve got better evidence, please present it.
Again, the reason a referendum would be bad is:
“Incidentally, the reason why those who want gay marriage object to the idea of a referendum is because, as I’m sure you know, referendums are not a matter of “What the majority of the country thinks”-it’s “What the majority of people in the majority of each state and territory in Australia thinks”-it’s part of the reason why referendums have traditionally failed (I believe only 4 in history have ever passed).
And not only that, to have a referendum you would have a lot of negative advertising. I remember the 1999 referendum on a republic-still remember the “No” theme song because it was on TV everyday. At least this time it wasn’t a threat to Republican supporters-no monarchists going around beating up republicans. Take a look at the ads in America calling for votes against gay marriage. It’s not “We oppose gay marriage because….” because really, there’s no reason to object to two people of the same gender-you yourself can only come up with “But…think of the children” which is fairly irrelevant. Instead you get “There’s an attack on your religion” “A storm is coming” “Your religion is being taken away….by the gays”
So a community that is already at risk of being beaten, assaulted, or killed by some ignorant people are now portrayed as “Evil” “Threats” and “Attacking your religion”-how safe would that make a gay person feel in Australia? ”
Three times I’ve answered your response about a referendum. Have you ever read it? No, of course not. They’d would involve possible considering another person’s opinion.
That’s why you think you’re a part of the majority-isn’t it? You ignore anyone who disagrees with you-so of course theo nly thing left over is your opinion.
“Your sexuality is your business,we do not want to know about it,please.”
Again, homosexuality should be silenced because you find it offensive. I find your beliefs offensive-am I allowed to demand you be silent?
!. Learn to spell “ethicist”. I can tell you have had little or no contact with ethics.
2. Elshtain was a conservative and a favourite of GWB but she did not unequivocally dismiss same sex marriage. She just wanted debate on it. Ethicists often raise the most absurd hypotheses simply to have a debate.
Since you pretend to know something about the subject take a look at some of the arguments posited by Peter Singer for the same purpose, different topic. Some look quite shocking to the uninitiated.
3. If you have an acute problem with children raised by same sex couples then obviously you would also have a problem with kids raised by single parents.
4. We’ll tell you what we tell all bigots. If you do not like same sex marriage, don’t have one.
Here we go again.Attack the person and not his/her point of view.I have read Peter Singer.I think it was called How should we live, You are assuming that I am a bigot because I do not share your point of view.I have no quarrel with homosexuals,I believe that they are as,,a small percentage of the population, are demanding rights that they are not entitled to,and further more,if they believe that they are entitled to the two states that I disagree with ie marriage and the adoption of children,when does the debate begin.
Your supposedly “contact” with ethics has not served you well,as you fail to accept that not everybody out here in the real world shares your views.And further,single parenting has nothing whatsoever to do with homosexual marriage.Where is your logic.Shifting ground has been the way I have been attacked on this site,which says very little for sensible debate.Your last sentence says it all.Homosexuals are themselves homophobic otherwise they would never want marriage.Legal validation by trickery and not debate.You and your ilk wish to change society,the tail does not wag the dog.
“Attack the person and not his/her point of view.”
Oh really? You’ve already said you’re not here to answer questions, not willing to have your point of view challenged at all-so wha’ts left nifty?
You won’t accept questioning of your belief, won’t accept attacks of your person-what are you accepting? Because it seems the only response you’ll accept is “I agree with you nifty”
But if there’s a way to disagree with you that you’ll allow (Considering questioning your beliefs and questioning you are both not allowed) please let me know.
“I have no quarrel with homosexuals,”
If you don’t have a problem with homosexuals, who you accuse of having a secret agenda, and should not be allowed with children-how do you act around someone you do have a quarrel with?
” believe that they are as,,a small percentage of the population, are demanding rights that they are not entitled to”
Again, the gay population of Australia is higher than the Aboriginal population of Australia. Should Aborigines not be allowed to have civil rights or the right to get married? Because if your argument is “Well, there’s not that many so they don’t deserve rights because of that” – then there’s a lot of groups in Australia who are smaller than the homosexual population.
“if they believe that they are entitled to the two states that I disagree with ie marriage and the adoption of children,”
Again, gay people are having children. Right now. You’re not stopping them. What you are stopping is the possibility of adopted children getting loving homes. Good on you!
“you fail to accept that not everybody out here in the real world shares your views”
Whereas you, nifty, accept all views, as long as they agree with yours. Questioning will not be accepted.
“And further,single parenting has nothing whatsoever to do with homosexual marriage.”
Only if you ignore everything you’ve just said. You said that a child needs a mogther and a father-both. So if a child definitely needs a mother and a father, which is your reason to not allow gay parenting, how is single parenting okay?
“.Shifting ground has been the way I have been attacked on this site,which says very little for sensible debate.”
Again, you have been involved in sensible debate for a long time now. You’re ignoring any response which doesn’t end with “I agree with you entirely nifty”
Please, again, tell me how a person is allowed to disagree with you in a way you’d accept. Because so far all you’re doing is “I don’t answer questions/I ignore those results/I ignore that opinion/You’re attacking me”
“Homosexuals are themselves homophobic otherwise they would never want marriage.”
Weren’t you just complaining about a lack of logic a while ago? I see no logic in this statement at all.
“You and your ilk wish to change society,the tail does not wag the dog.’
Again, every poll in Australia has shown a majority support for gay marriage. You have not found ANY evidence to the contrary. Not a damn thing.
The tail is already wagging, you’re just trying to grab a hold of it. Good luck with that.
It is my philosophical view that there is nourishment in opposition(my quote by the way)so let us enjoy the feast.J.M says the tail is wagging and I think Tony Abbott has seriously got his hands on it.Now I know that Tony is a Luddite,who does not believe the science that says global warming is happening,but on the question of homosexual marriage I see him as a catalyst for a real debate on this issue.Not just a debate on “Gay” marriage per se,but a debate on the ramifications arising from that,which,objectively deals with my main concern,the stigmatisation of kids,and any other concern or fears that the general community may have.I welcome that.And no matter what the opponents of a referendum may think,surely it is a step that you/they the homosexual community must bravely take.
“the stigmatisation of kids”
Again on the stigmatisation of kids?
As I’ve said before, kids can be stigmatised for having two parents of different races, of only have one parent, lots of reasons.
So, do we either remove all points of difference among children, to make one uniform clone race? Or do we instead trying and stop bullying by punishing the bully, rather than subtly suggest “Well, if you weren’t so different, you wouldn’t get bullied, so it’s kinda your fault”?
Or in other words-if you are wanting to ban gay marriage due to a fear of stigmatisation of children, why not ban all possible things that will lead to stigmatisation?
Which brings us back to the other question-why ban gay marriage due to concerns for children, when gay people who want to have children already are having children right now?
“I welcome that.”
You welcome a debate, but when presented with a debate refuse to answer questions about your beliefs. Why is that?
Or is it the case that you’re okay with a debate, as long as you’re not questioned.
“And no matter what the opponents of a referendum may think,surely it is a step that you/they the homosexual community must bravely take.”
Must? Why must? Did we have a referendum to allow women the vote? To end the white Australia policy?
We have given virtually all civil rights without a referendum, because as I have repeatedly stated referendums do not pass on the will of the people, but the will of the majority people in the majority of states-a completely different thing.
So why “must” we have a referendum on gay marriage when we have had a reverefdum on only a tiny number of issues in Australia, especially considering it would lead to an already harrassed community being attacked.
I support gay marriage. I’ve been in a same sex relationship for three years and wish to marry my partner one day.
The reason we must have a referendum is because we now have a prime minister who is against homosexual marriage,(notice the lower case)and if my judgement is correct will not allow a conscience vote in the lower house,should the labor party or the greens etc put one up.On the question of civil rights,marriage is essentially between a man and a woman,for the benefit of children,and I would add,that if people are talking about civil rights,why not go and preach to the governments of North Korea,Iran,China,Russia,Uganda,Saudi Arabia.I could go on.I am not a religious person,quite the opposite,the fact that my views coincide with some of that mob is a coincidence nothing more.A referendum is the only possible avenue to take,at least for the next three years,and JM if homosexuality is so mainstream why do you refer to them as a “Community”and also,as far as the notion of harassment,and being attacked is concerned I think that is rubbish……In my view JM In my view!!Voltaire said something like, I dont agree with your point of view but I will die for your right to express it.Dont hate me, thats bigotry.
I don’t want any more than to marry my partner. I don’t want children and neither does my partner. I don’t support gay couples deliberately having children. I think that children should have the starting point of a mother and father in a relationship. Not all gay couples want children if that is your fear.
Carol, I know a lot of gay parents, and children of gay parents. All are fine.
Similarly I know a lot of childre nraised by one parent. They’re going well too.
There’s no evidence that having gay parents puts a child at any risk for development at all. The only significant difference from studies I believe, is that children raisedby gay parents tend to be more tolerant of homosexuality.
“The reason we must have a referendum is because we now have a prime minister who is against homosexual marriage”
Wait, we must have a referendum because the government is opposed to same-sex marriage? Surely we’d need a referendum on every topic, because the Government is currently against a lot of things.
Or, instead, people could make it an election issue, and choose to vote on that. After all, Tony Abbot won’t be Prime Minister forever you know. Also, he’s already backing down. He’s gone from “It’s something we’re against,” to “It’s something we’ll consider in the next parliament”-a big change. And the amount of times he’s backing down on things at the moment, if he gets desperate enough.
“marriage is essentially between a man and a woman,for the benefit of children,”
Says who? The Bible who goes through multiple forms of marriage in the old testament alone?
Also, if it’s for the benefit of children, are infertile or sterile couples allowed to marry? Also, are single parents allowed to keep care of their children?
“I would add,that if people are talking about civil rights,why not go and preach to the governments of North Korea,Iran,China,Russia,Uganda,Saudi Arabia.”
Wait, so the reason gay people can’t complain about civil rights is “Countries elsewhere have fewer rights”?
Are we allowed to dismiss all social issues as well nifty? “Well, the rate of sexual assault in this country is high, but not as high as in other countries, so before you start complaining about rapists in Australia, you should go overseas an complain there”
Well, I put it to you, if gay marriage is such a concern to you nifty, why aren’t you going to preach to England, France, South Africa, Canada, various states in the US, etc?
“A referendum is the only possible avenue to take,at least for the next three years,”
Unless there’s a double dissolution.
Also, activists can continue to make it an issue, refuse to be quiet on it, and this would result in it becoming a main election issue-leading to Abbott backing down in order to save his government (Not particularly likely, but hey, I never would have thought the Liberal party would deny wanting to turn back the boats until this week), or an alternative leader winning a lot of votes on the issue (As is currently happening in the Labor leadership challenges).
“if homosexuality is so mainstream why do you refer to them as a “Community””
Community isn’t mainstream anymore? I refer to the Christian community, the conservative community, the Asian community, the female community-you’re imagining and redefining words again.
“as far as the notion of harassment,and being attacked is concerned I think that is rubbish”
You are denying that gay people get beaten up, assaulted, and bullied because of their sexuality now? You’re saying the following articles are all lies:
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2005/05/24/1116700713242.html
http://www.samesame.com.au/news/local/7016/Tassie-anger-over-gay-bashing.htm
http://www.outinperth.com/gay-bashing-in-perth/
Also, these murders, some as recent as the lates 90’s-never happened:
http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/sydney-shame
“In my view JM In my view!!”
Opinions can be wrong, when their based on inaccuracies, or in your case, ignorance of reality. For instance, if someone were to punch you, and say that didn’t hurt you, you would disagree with their opinion, right?
Or would you accept their view that their punch didnt hurt you?
“Voltaire said something like, I dont agree with your point of view but I will die for your right to express it.Dont hate me, thats bigotry.”
Right, so to be clear, Hating gay people for wanting equal rights, calling them abnormal, wrong, and implying a danger to children is not bigotry-hating someone for have a hateful opinion is bigotry.
Do you honestly believe that, or is it just something you use so you hope people will stop being angry at you? I mean, if someone walked up to you and said “I hate you, and I hope you and everyone you love dies-but don’t hate me, that’s just me opinion, and if you hate me it’s bigotry”-would you not even dislike that person?
You seem to think with that comment that a person should be judged, not on the quality of their character, but on their sexuality. That a person should not be judged on their words and deed, but on who they are in love with. I don’t know if you’ve heard of the term, but “ass backward” is completely appropriate here.
You have a right to your view. That is true. But a right to your view does not include a right to never have your view questioned. That is what you seem to think you have the right to.
Your personal distaste has nothing to do with equal rights. You can express your loathsome intolerance for same sex people (your “rights”) but you cannot either make your intolerance the law of the land if an enlightened government votes to remedy the Marriage Act nor can you make us agree with you. So I guess you are wasting your time here.
And we have an abiding distaste for intolerant bigots. This blog is not and never will be a platform for them.
Unfortunately we cannot make the government outlaw them.
Well, first of all,lets deal with mind madeup.The pseudonym almost reads like a confession of bigotry in itself.A bigot (according to my dictionary) is a person who is intolerant to any ideas other than his own,and I am very interested in the ideas of,and the reason for homosexual people,wanting to “remedy” the marriage act.Am I a bigot?
My heart goes out to Carol,who wants to marry,and she should be able to marry her partner,but, unfortunately for her,some of the more militant homosexuals,they not only want that, but the full,legal entitlement to mix their sperm,find a suitable “mule” to carry the child of that entanglement and then,rear the “offspring” in a supposedly blissfull,idyllic,environment where that child will never fear from peer exclusion,as a result of having a pair of dads,or mums,especially in the formative,highly sensitive teenage years?What?? They are the ones Carol,obstructing the way,not people like myself. We will find a way for you to marry,Carol,you have sensed my fears.I agree,that it is preferable for chidren to have a father and mother,that is my premise.I never thought that I would find someone such as you.You have cut through the internet ether like a knife to saying what you said, simply.I thank you for that.
” but the full,legal entitlement to mix their sperm,find a suitable “mule” to carry the child of that entanglement and then,rear the “offspring” in a supposedly blissfull,idyllic,environment where that child will never fear from peer exclusion”
Do I need to repeat myself again?
1- Gay couples who want to have children can and do have cildren regardless of marriage.
2- Children can be excluded for many many reasons. Are we go to attempt to eliminate all possible reasons for exclusion too?
“We will find a way for you to marry,Carol,”
How? How are you going to arrange for gay couples to get married without allowing them to get married? Please, tell me how.
While you’re figuring out how youre going to allow a lesbian couple to get married while also not allowing gay couples to get married, here is some reading material for you:
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/109/2/341.full
“children who grow up with 1 or 2 gay and/or lesbian parents fare as well in emotional, cognitive, social, and sexual functioning as do children whose parents are heterosexual. ”
http://content.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1994480,00.html
“children raised by lesbian mothers — whether the mother was partnered or single — scored very similarly to children raised by heterosexual parents on measures of development and social behavior. These findings were expected, the authors said; however, they were surprised to discover that children in lesbian homes scored higher than kids in straight families on some psychological measures of self-esteem and confidence, did better academically and were less likely to have behavioral problems, such as rule-breaking and aggression.”
Click to access p09b.pdf
Research findings find no warrant for fears about children of gay and lesbian parents
Evidence, based on gay parents, today. Not fears-actual reality.
I certainly don’t agree with discriminating against people who already have children. Some people don’t come out till after a marriage that involves children. But these people who decide to adopt or use a person outside the marriage to have children I think is not really a fair thing. I just couldn’t do that to children and not have a father figure in the home. I think that it’s selfish thing to do, and I think if you want children then I don’t think that the gay community is the place for you. I’ve very content in my life with my partner and our dog.
If you want children then the gay community is not the right place for you?
You say it’s like it’s a choice. That you either choose to have children or choose to be gay-when both are parts of life that are rights.
Incidentally, see the above post once its approved for evidence that children are not adversely affected by being raised by two gay parents.
Well that’s your opinion. I think people wanting to start families in gay relationships is wrong. I think they are setting back getting gay marriage legalized. That’s what peoples concern is gays starting families. When you have a dad not even in the home it’s not a good start.
O. K Give me an example how homosexuals have children JM.I know one scenario where a homosexual and a lesbian have a child between them,,but, that in an artificially created broken marriage as it were,,,still maintains the dad and mum situation. Hopefully kids in that ” broken family” are not in danger of the risk of stigmatisation,of which nobody on your side of this debate is honest enought to admit is a real possibility.
What are your examplesJ.M of homosexuals having children?? And,Why dont you address my concerns regarding stigmatisation of children?I repeat: Children should not be the cannon fodder for change.Please address with your blinkers off this important aspect of the debate.You know the risks so address them,honestly.
Gay marriage is about recognition of gay relationships. It’s about equal rights. It shouldn’t become about children.
And now we have another exciting example of nifty asking for responses to things he’s already received multiple times.
“O. K Give me an example how homosexuals have children ”
Donations from family members, and surrogacy are two ways that are entirely legal right now and currently happening. And of course, as Carol has said, there are many partners who separate, one of whom or both coming out of the closet. There’s also in family placement, because if a child loses both their parents, surely you’d agree they would be better placed with a family member who loves them, no matter their sexuality, than a stranger.
“I know one scenario where a homosexual and a lesbian have a child between them,,but, that in an artificially created broken marriage as it were,,,still maintains the dad and mum situation”
Wait, you think it would be better for child to grow up in a situation where their parents do not love each other, do not feel attracted to each other and have never been attracted to each other, than to have two parents of the same gender.
“What are your examplesJ.M of homosexuals having children?? “”
As I’ve told you multiple times, my friends afe children of gay parents, and gay parents themselves. I haven’t gotten into the nitty-gritty of how every single one of them came to be-because that’s a bit imposing.
“And,Why dont you address my concerns regarding stigmatisation of children?””
I have responded to yor concerns multiple times! I have responded to your concerns six separate times on this page, and you have repeatedly ignored them. And now you demand I answer, while also saying you’ll refuse to answer any question which challenges your beliefs.
But if you want to hear the response a seventh time:
As I’ve said before, kids can be stigmatised for having two parents of different races, of only have one parent, lots of reasons.
So, do we either remove all points of difference among children, to make one uniform clone race? Or do we instead trying and stop bullying by punishing the bully, rather than subtly suggest “Well, if you weren’t so different, you wouldn’t get bullied, so it’s kinda your fault”?
Or in other words-if you are wanting to ban gay marriage due to a fear of stigmatisation of children, why not ban all possible things that will lead to stigmatisation?
“I repeat: Children should not be the cannon fodder for change.”
Couldn’t this exact same line be used to ban mixed race marriage?
“You know the risks so address them,honestly.”
Did you read the articles I put up? No of course you didn’t-you don’t read or consider things that may challenge your beliefs. It’s a pity though, becaue they are actual studies of gay parents, and found no risks, no long term damage-nothing.
let’s go again then:
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/109/2/341.full
“children who grow up with 1 or 2 gay and/or lesbian parents fare as well in emotional, cognitive, social, and sexual functioning as do children whose parents are heterosexual. ”
http://content.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1994480,00.html
“children raised by lesbian mothers — whether the mother was partnered or single — scored very similarly to children raised by heterosexual parents on measures of development and social behavior. These findings were expected, the authors said; however, they were surprised to discover that children in lesbian homes scored higher than kids in straight families on some psychological measures of self-esteem and confidence, did better academically and were less likely to have behavioral problems, such as rule-breaking and aggression.”
Click to access p09b.pdf
Research findings find no warrant for fears about children of gay and lesbian parents
I’ve got more since then. Let’s talk directly about bullying. Because one study in America found that children of gay parents were at risk of bullying (Though no measure to determine whether the bullying is more or less likely than other groups)-but here’s the thign. That study had a follow up, when the children were 17, with the same kids, and found NO long term damage,in any measure (social, psychological, emotional, or developmental)
http://content.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1994480,00.html
So let’s talk about the risks. Science and research says there are no more risks for gay parenting than straight parenting. Do you want to talk more about this? Or are you going to deny it because it doesn’t fit into your theory?
Exactly Carol,but children are the hidden agenda.Not for you,but there are some people out there who are not like you,or at least what I think you represent,that( in my opinion) see children as posessions and want full legal validation to obtain children,by whatever means and marriage provides that,legally.They say as a defence to my fears,(as you expressed),So what,there are plenty of forms of stigmatisation out there that children are exposed to so another one wont matter.J,M quotes a well respected American female professor who is all for homosexuals having children, but he fails to mention she is a lesbian with a family,which is the truth.
Still waiting on nifty to explain hbow he is going to help Carol get married without allowing marriage. I’m really looking forward to this.
“but children are the hidden agenda”
For the umpteenth time, how are children the hidden agenda when gay parents who chose to do so are having children right now.
“marriage provides that,legally.”
What avenues to having children would marriage provide which is not already provided legally in Australia already? Considering gay partnerships are eligible to de facto recognition, and de facto has the right to most of the things marriage provides in Australia, what exactly is going to be provided to gay couples to help them get children which they are not already entitled to in law.
“,So what,there are plenty of forms of stigmatisation out there that children are exposed to so another one wont matter.”
So you did read by response to stigamtisation fear-then ignored it reapeatedly. That seems standard for a free thinker like yourself.
Again, are you going to try an eliminate all possible causes of stigamatisation, or is there a reason same sex parenting and only same sex parenting is a possible a sitgma which must be stopp? In your answer, please you might also like to reflect the study that showed no long term developmental damage to having parents of the same sex, despite bullying being recorded at age 10.
“but he fails to mention she is a lesbian with a family,which is the truth.”
I’ve actually posted 4 articles, all saying the same thing, one coming from the American Academy of Pediatrics-are they all lesbians too? The entire Academy?
And do you have any problem with the research methdology you are ferring to,hber conclusions, or the results analysed-or is it just a case that she’s a lesbian and disagrees with you that means you ignore everything her study showed?
It begs the question-what would you accept nifty as challenging infromation-something that disagreed with yuor view? We’ve already been aware that you won’t accept questions of yuor belief system, and now you won’t accept research which challenges your fears and contradicts your expectations. So what evidence would you accept which demonstrates that same sex parenting prodcues no more risks for long term developmental problems than heterosexual parenting?
Or is it a case that you’re a free thinker, but refuse to accept anything that contradicts your thoughts. If that’s the case you better get some bigger blinkers-you’re going to need to shut out a lot of things in the future.
Yeah i’m not so sure about the studies. We have friends who have a young boy who was teased at school because mum was a dyke and ended up chaging schools. Kids can be nasty to other kids like that. Some gay people do have children, but they are a minority, and it’s not the ideal. and nearly always they have both their biological parents involved in the upbringing not just some friend who has decided to act as the sperm donor for a lesbian couple.
For couples like myself children is not the hidden agender. Unfortunately I don’t have control over the whole gay community, and now transgender people are even being grouped with us as if we are some types of freaks. We are just normal people in same sex relationships..
“We have friends who have a young boy who was teased at school because mum was a dyke and ended up chaging schools. ”
Carol-did bullying only exist among children of gay parents, or does bullying exist separately to that?
Bullying will exist with or without same sex parenting. If we are saying bullying is a reason to stop same sex parenting, surely all factors that could possibly lead to bullying should be stopped-such as red heads, mixed race parenting, any difference whatosever.
Also, is the bullying far worse than the effcts of drug and alcohol addiction, domestic violence, or sexual abuse? Because we don’t have any restriction on heterosexual parents prior to having a child, including for checking for a history of any of these things, so if same sex parenting is so bad that it needs to be restricted, it would have to be worse than an abusive, or drug addicted couple.
Incidentally, one personal experience is not as significant as a large sample based study. Therefore research showing no long term issues due to bullying is a bit more representative than one experience you’ve seen that you haven’t seen the long term effects of.
After all, there are some gay people who shouldn’t get married, just as there are some straight people who shouldn’t get married, for whatever reason. How would you like it if people used one example of a gay person who shouldn’t ever be married (For problems with violence, or commitment issues or something like that) to justify condemning all gay marriage?
Because as you know, that’s the exact thing that happens already. And it’s not particularly nice.
I see what you are saying there are dead beat straight couples with kids who probably shouldn’t be parents, but are you suggesting there are less dead beat or drug taking people in the gay community? If you are I will fully take that as a complement. I think though there would be no difference.
The thing that conserns me is a girl growing up without a female figure, a boy growing up without a father figure. Surely we can both agree that single parents of either gender is not ideal. It’s better to have both genders involved in child raring. That’s why i’m not intetestef in children, I just don’t think it’sfair
“are you suggesting there are less dead beat or drug taking people in the gay community?”
Not at all. My point was we do not have any restriction on heterosexual couples. None at all. But you’re saying there should be restrictions on homosexual couples-regardless of their concerns, or lack thereof. If we have no problem with any heterosexual couple having children no matter their problems, but do have problems with any homosexual couples having children no matter their lack of problems, it suggests that the sexuality alone is a bigger risk to children’s upbringing than everything a heterosexual couple may have.
One thing that actually works in a child’s favour when it comes to having homosexual parents, of course, is that children are far more likely to be prepared for. Because “accidental pregnancies” are not exactly common in the homosexual community, a same-sex couple would have had more chance to prepare for a child emotionally, in terms of their life style, and financially. And as I work with kids from a low SES status, I can tell you the worse thing for kids isn’t whether or not they have a mum or a dad, but when those parents haven’t had the time to become parents.
“Surely we can both agree that single parents of either gender is not ideal.”
But a same sex couple is not the same as a single parent. A meta analysis of 33 studies in 2010 found that parental gender had no bearing on childhood development-with the key factors being resources and childcare commitments. A dual parent of either sexuality can provide more resources than a single parent, or parents that are disengaged with children. (Source:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/16/gay-parents-better-than-straights_n_1208659.html)
We do not check the finances of prospective parents before they have children, nor check that both the father and the mother are interested in playing an active part in raising the chil.d No one is calling for that, despite these being main determining factors in children’s development outlook. But you and nifty would like same-sex couples to be prevented in having children, and only that factor. Why?
“That’s why i’m not intetestef in children, I just don’t think it’sfair”
To misquote a movie-you say the word “Fair” so much, I wonder what your comparison is. Similar to your use of selfish previously.
Like I said, we have no restriction on heterosexual parents-none at all. Regardless of whether it’s fair for the child to grow up in that home, whether the child was made for selfish reasons. But you and nifty both want restrictions on same sex parenting-why is that? How is same sex parenting generally worse than heterosexual parenting-when all the studies I’ve provided show no difference.
Well ultimately thats going to be something for adoption agencies to decide. Usually you need to show a stable environment. I don’t believe in gay couples adopting. I am not the average lesbian either.i am still attracted to men, I have just fallen in love with a woman. She is the only woman I have ever been sexually active with. So not all lesbians are like what you see on tv.
“Well ultimately thats going to be something for adoption agencies to decide.”
Well, adoption is kinda rare in Australia at the moment, outside of family loss (In which case adoption tends to be in-family).
” Usually you need to show a stable environment.”
Can we agree stability is more important than the sexuality of the parents?
” I don’t believe in gay couples adopting.”
Why? Why when there was plenty of data showing no harm to children in having parents of the same gender?
” I am not the average lesbian either.i am still attracted to men,”
What does that have to do with anything?
“So not all lesbians are like what you see on tv.”
Who’s talking about TV? I’m talking about research studies, and nifty’s apparent belief he will somehow organise gay marriage while banning gay marriage.
Anyway, back to my key point again:
We have no restriction on heterosexual parents-none at all. Regardless of whether it’s fair for the child to grow up in that home, whether the child was made for selfish reasons. But you and nifty both want restrictions on same sex parenting-why is that? How is same sex parenting generally worse than heterosexual parenting-when all the studies I’ve provided show no difference.
You see,as soon as somebody mentions a valid concern JM starts on the shifting ground roundabout tallking about redheads, bullying,race,blond kids,fat kids, etc in an attempt to ameliorate the very concern that is raised.One more reason for stigmatisation,is not a good thing,surely, and they,the homosexual marriage proponents towards this end,(ie kids) need to address if they wish to proceed.It is no use copping out by using some sort of relativity argument .They have no concrete answer and I will repeat.Children should not be the cannon fodder for change.Carol can see this,why cant you JM?
As soon as someone asks nifty a valid question, he ignores it.
“One more reason for stigmatisation,is not a good thing,surely,”
But you’re not trying to stop all forms of stigamtisation-you’re only trying to stop same sex parenting, right? Why is that? Why is same sex parenting any more stigmatising than any other source of bullying?
And shouldn’t we be working on stopping the bullying, rather than stopping the difference among children? I mean, even if same sex parenting ceased to exist, you’d still have bullyign, and presumably nifty would want to stop that bullying through working with bullies, rather than working with remove all points of difference with the kids. Why not start with working with the bullies then?
“and they,the homosexual marriage proponents towards this end,(ie kids) need to address if they wish to proceed.”
Again, yet another time, if a gay couple wants to have kids, they can have kids right now. What legal avenues open up with marriage for a gay couple that they cannot already get for a de facto relationship?
Those against homosexual marriage, particularly you, need to explain how children are somehow more able to exist through marriage, if you intend to continue using children as a reason to ban gay marriage?
“Children should not be the cannon fodder for change.”
How is this line any different than lines use to stop mixed race parenting? I’m asking you nifty because presumably children would be just as stigamtised, especially in the past, for having parents from two different ethnicities? Are you against that too-or is that a stigmatisation which is okay to you?
“Carol can see this,why cant you JM?”
Because Carol is basing her view on one experience, you are basing your belief on, I don’t know, the works of Andrew Bolt. I’m basing my experience on multiple positive experiences, and a large study into the effects of same sex parenting on children.
But, hey, if you’ve got evidence that the bullying created by having same sex parenting is any worse or with longer lasting effects than any other type of bullying which you are not suggesting we prevent by removing the point of stigma among the children, then please, go ahead and provide it.
But we both know you don’t have any evidence, because if you had it, you would have demonstrated it already.
And to demonstrate how much nifty wants a discussion, a debate on these issues, and how much he;s willing to discuss these issues, here are the 38 questions nifty refuses to answer. Why? Because apparently he likes debate, as long as it comes in the form of “Everything yuo say is correct-nifty”
1. Wait, you think it would be better for child to grow up in a situation where their parents do not love each other, do not feel attracted to each other and have never been attracted to each other, than to have two parents of the same gender.
2. As I’ve said before, kids can be stigmatised for having two parents of different races, of only have one parent, lots of reasons.
So, do we either remove all points of difference among children, to make one uniform clone race? Or do we instead trying and stop bullying by punishing the bully, rather than subtly suggest “Well, if you weren’t so different, you wouldn’t get bullied, so it’s kinda your fault”?
Or in other words-if you are wanting to ban gay marriage due to a fear of stigmatisation of children, why not ban all possible things that will lead to stigmatisation?
3. “I repeat: Children should not be the cannon fodder for change.”
Couldn’t this exact same line be used to ban mixed race marriage?
4. So let’s talk about the risks. Science and research says there are no more risks for gay parenting than straight parenting. Do you want to talk more about this? Or are you going to deny it because it doesn’t fit into your theory?
5. Still waiting on nifty to explain hbow he is going to help Carol get married without allowing marriage. I’m really looking forward to this.
6. For the umpteenth time, how are children the hidden agenda when gay parents who chose to do so are having children right now.
7. What avenues to having children would marriage provide which is not already provided legally in Australia already? Considering gay partnerships are eligible to de facto recognition, and de facto has the right to most of the things marriage provides in Australia, what exactly is going to be provided to gay couples to help them get children which they are not already entitled to in law.
8. I’ve actually posted 4 articles, all saying the same thing, one coming from the American Academy of Pediatrics-are they all lesbians too? The entire Academy?
9. It begs the question-what would you accept nifty as challenging infromation-something that disagreed with yuor view? We’ve already been aware that you won’t accept questions of yuor belief system, and now you won’t accept research which challenges your fears and contradicts your expectations. So what evidence would you accept which demonstrates that same sex parenting prodcues no more risks for long term developmental problems than heterosexual parenting?
10. Says who? The Bible who goes through multiple forms of marriage in the old testament alone?
Also, if it’s for the benefit of children, are infertile or sterile couples allowed to marry? Also, are single parents allowed to keep care of their children?
11. Wait, so the reason gay people can’t complain about civil rights is “Countries elsewhere have fewer rights”?
Are we allowed to dismiss all social issues as well nifty? “Well, the rate of sexual assault in this country is high, but not as high as in other countries, so before you start complaining about rapists in Australia, you should go overseas an complain there”
12. Well, I put it to you, if gay marriage is such a concern to you nifty, why aren’t you going to preach to England, France, South Africa, Canada, various states in the US, etc?
13. “if homosexuality is so mainstream why do you refer to them as a “Community””
Community isn’t mainstream anymore? I refer to the Christian community, the conservative community, the Asian community, the female community-you’re imagining and redefining words again.
14. You are denying that gay people get beaten up, assaulted, and bullied because of their sexuality now? You’re saying the following articles are all lies:
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2005/05/24/1116700713242.html
http://www.samesame.com.au/news/local/7016/Tassie-anger-over-gay-bashing.htm
http://www.outinperth.com/gay-bashing-in-perth/
Also, these murders, some as recent as the lates 90′s-never happened:
15. Opinions can be wrong, when their based on inaccuracies, or in your case, ignorance of reality. For instance, if someone were to punch you, and say that didn’t hurt you, you would disagree with their opinion, right?
Or would you accept their view that their punch didnt hurt you?
16. Right, so to be clear, Hating gay people for wanting equal rights, calling them abnormal, wrong, and implying a danger to children is not bigotry-hating someone for have a hateful opinion is bigotry.
Do you honestly believe that, or is it just something you use so you hope people will stop being angry at you? I mean, if someone walked up to you and said “I hate you, and I hope you and everyone you love dies-but don’t hate me, that’s just me opinion, and if you hate me it’s bigotry”-would you not even dislike that person?
17. You welcome a debate, but when presented with a debate refuse to answer questions about your beliefs. Why is that?
18. “Homosexuals are themselves homophobic otherwise they would never want marriage.”
Weren’t you just complaining about a lack of logic a while ago? I see no logic in this statement at all.
19. You said that a child needs a mogther and a father-both. So if a child definitely needs a mother and a father, which is your reason to not allow gay parenting, how is single parenting okay?
20. the gay population of Australia is higher than the Aboriginal population of Australia. Should Aborigines not be allowed to have civil rights or the right to get married? Because if your argument is “Well, there’s not that many so they don’t deserve rights because of that” – then there’s a lot of groups in Australia who are smaller than the homosexual population.
21. If you don’t have a problem with homosexuals, who you accuse of having a secret agenda, and should not be allowed with children-how do you act around someone you do have a quarrel with?
22. “.The fact that homosexuals do not want a referendum is that they KNOW the silent majority ”
How do you know you are a part of the majority? Again, if you’ve got better evidence, please present it.
23. Incidentally, isn’t it Tony Abbot who has recently softened his opinion on gay marriage from “We believe marriage must be between a man and a woman” to “We will discuss the possibility of gay marriage within the party room after the election?
Why the softening neville? I mean, if all of Australia opposes gay marriage, if it’s a hardcore belief of the party-why the softening from “Nope, never ever”: to “Maybe, we’ll think about it”?
24. So a community that is already at risk of being beaten, assaulted, or killed by some ignorant people would be portrayed in a referendum as “Evil” “Threats” and “Attacking your religion”-how safe would that make a gay person feel in Australia?
25. So, do we either remove all points of difference among children, to make one uniform clone race? Or do we instead trying and stop bullying by punishing the bully, rather than subtly suggest “Well, if you weren’t so different, you wouldn’t get bullied, so it’s kinda your fault”?
26. Why don’t you? Marriage has changed so often its definition, if you want marriage to be an exclusive club that doesn’t allow gay people, why don’t you come up with a new name to define your super duper relationship that gay people aren’t allowed to join?
27. Just to be clear, are you saying all heterosexual couples would make better parents than all gay couples?
28. People were using virtually the same arguments as you are using now 50 years ago to decry and complain about interracial marriage. What makes your stand against gay marriage so much more enlightened, and not something we’ll all look back in embarrassment over 50 years ago?
29, Again, if this is the true secret intentions, and all gay people want is to have kids….why don’t they just have kids?
30. So, you believe if you are a small minority you’re not allowed to celebrate who you are, and have to live in denial about this?
Have you told the Indian population of Australia this? “You’re not allowed to celebrate your nationality, culture or religion, because you’re a minority in this country and it annoys me”?
What about the Aboriginal population: “You’re not allowed to have special celebrations of who you are because you’re a minority in this country”
I can’t wait to see how it goes!
31. Oh, so gay people aren’t allowed to celebrate who they are because it annoys you and people you know.
Neville, you annoy me, and people I know. Am I allowed to request you stop celebrating your bigotry and conservatism and waving your intolerant views around like a flag? If you’re allowed to complain about gay people exercising their free speech, surely I’m allowed to complain about you exercising your free speech.
32. ” Explain. I dont celebrate who I am,what for?”
Oh, don’t you? I mean, I celebrate my religion multiple times a year, my nationality at many different occasions, my sexuality and my relationship at my wedding, anniversary, valentine’s day…..you don’t do any of that?
33. Considering the majority of people in Australia support gay marriage, and you think normal is the majority, does this make you abnormal?
34. if you’ve got a source of a child complaining about their parents being gay, and saying “I wish I had never been born, because it would have been better I never excisted than having two parents of the same gender” please present it.
Oh, you don’t? If you don’t have evidence that children with same sex parents are not in anyway angry that their parents are gay, and preferring to not exist than to have gay parents, then you have no basis for complaint.
35. Now have you actually ever met a real gay person, or a child raised by a gay person or couple.
36. Again, the word bent came around as a word to insult gay people. Straight turned up in response to that. Bent has since been reclaimed.
But to be clear, are you saying gay is wrong “Because the word I’ve invented to describe them is negative”?
37. Ah, so sex that involves anything other than penis in vagina is unnatural now? Firstly, does this mean all other sexual behaviour, including a lot of heterosexual sex acts are unnatural, unless they are penis in vagina? If so, I’m guessing unnatural is going to the norm.
38. Also, if homosexual sex (Because that’s what your implying) is unnatural….how come it turns up all the time in nature? I mean, seriously, if it’s unnatural, surely we shouldn’t be seeing it in 100+ different species of animals, including highly intelligent animals such as dolphins.
38 Questions! 38! I could write a book on the questions you refuse to answer, the evidence you refuse to accept.
And you like to say you’re a person who wants debate. How do you want debate when you refuse to actually consider any points that challenge your view, and any evidence that contradicts how you want reality to be? What form would you accept debate, accept disagreement? I don’t see anyway you could do it.
Poor old JM, he has gone from the roundabout to the Gee Whizzer.
Poor old nifty-he likes to think of himself as a free thinker, but ignores any questions, any evidence, and any aspect of reality which challenges his view.
He likes to think he accepts other views, and is noit a bigot, but really can only accept discussion, let alone opinion, if it comes in the form of unqualified agreement.
He fears questions, fears thinking abotu his view because if he’s wrong in his view about an entire community of people he has no contact with, what else may he have mistaken assumptions about? He hopes he will never know.
I always wonder why people oppose gays. I honestly think the best thing for Nifty to do would be to meet some gay men and have a bit of fun with them. It doesn’t mean you’re gay, you can have sex with a man once or twice, it doesn’t mean you are gay. Men have given blow jobs to other men and continued neing straight. Women kissing other women or group masturbation. It called trying something new. Doesn’t mean you are gay. You should open your mind a bit more nifty.
I have a question for you Nifty. Would you have sex with a lesbian couple? I’m guessing the answer would be yes. You more than likely watch this porn, but still oppose gays.
Carol I dont watch lesbian porn,and as far as having sex with lesbians,they would have to be bisexual to willingly consent,so thats not a problem.That would be fun.I don’t oppose Homosexuality,it is the way you are made.You know my fears.Carol.Its the children thing.But as far as having fun with “Gay” men,no thats not my bent.Good try.
Nifty, you previously called homosexuality unnatural. (Back when you were calling yourself Neville for some reason).
Now you are saying you don’t oppose Homosexuality, and that’s the way a person is made.
Please tell me how you rationalise those two beliefs in your mind
So I’m just wondering why you seem to be less harsh on lesbians than homosexual men? I find it hard to believe that you have not seen Lesbian or “bisexual” porn nifty. I’m trying to get you to open your mind to accept gays. I know your stance on gays and children, and it’s similar to mine, but I feel that you should at least open your mind to be more accepting of gays. I was just having a joke with the have some fun with some gay men. In all seriousness though, a little fun does not mean that you are gay, and gay people do become bi or more straight oriented. It’s all personal choice.
Well JM I will put it another way Homsexuals are an aberration of nature,nonetheless to themselves alone they feel perfectly normal,as I understand it and Carol is wrong,I do accept Homosexuals but not to the extent that you both consider I should ie Marriage,etc.
I really don’t understand what harm can come from allowing same sex marriages. I think the people who are so opposed to it, or opposed to any group or person who is different to themselves, has genuine inferiority issues. They need to put down anyone that is not like them, and dismiss their life or culture, to validate their own. It’s sickeningly self-delusional.