The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Why are we deafened by the silence? > Comments

Why are we deafened by the silence? : Comments

By Greg Donnelly, published 19/9/2012

What implications will same-sex marriage have on the education of our children?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All
>>Explicitly within the content and the messaging, sexuality of whatever nature is deemed to be inherently equal and morally valid.<<

And? What's wrong with that? How can you reasonably assign moral value to somebody's sexuality? Being attracted to the opposite sex isn't noble or ignoble - me liking women doesn't make me a better person or a worse person. Rudolf Hoess was a committed family man; JFK was a serial womanizer - both clearly heterosexual and at opposite poles of the moral compass. So if being attracted to the opposite sex doesn't make you a good or bad person then why would being attracted to the same sex make you a good or bad person? On what ethical framework do you base your opposition to homosexuality?

Cheers,

Tony
Posted by Tony Lavis, Wednesday, 19 September 2012 7:03:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
...Marriage between homosexuals, on a scale of one to ten, would rate last and the least important in terms of relevant issues in our communities, requiring the investment of the valuable resource of a politicians’ time.

...While notable, high profile and loudly advocating homosexuals such as Penny Wong and the retired High Court judge, Justice Michael Kirby, team-up to advocate for community acceptance of homosexuality, (in all its guises), and use their own personal overweighted examples as evidence of success; the “Romney 47%” of Australian society with no political voice at all, sit and wonder about the inequality and unfairness of political representation, which can be so successfully skewed towards the “irrelevant”!
Posted by diver dan, Wednesday, 19 September 2012 9:35:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sorry, this is a little away from the main points of the article. but I am genuinely puzzled by the desire to legalise a relationship and call it a marraige.

Over the years I have known many people sharing their lives, apparently happily, and for their own reasons, not married. There must be many thousands of partnerships who can get by without being designated by the term-"marraige".

It would not be difficult to enter in to a legal partnership if one desired. So why not live in a way that suits without having to alter the dictionary meaning of marraige?
Posted by Noelreg, Wednesday, 19 September 2012 9:57:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If you do a Google on this chap you will find that he has quite a bit of sympathy for that charming outfit opus dei. The serious members of which practice bodily self-mortification on a daily basis.

Personally I would not let ANY child anywhere near a person who practices self-mortification.

Remember too that Tony Abbott has more than passing sympathy with opus dei, as does his "spiritual" mentor/adviser George Pell.

But what is normal anyhow?

The systematic abuse of children as practiced for decades by priests in Ireland, which was of course systematically covered up too.
Or perhaps we should use the monstrous dramatized example of the founder of the "traditionalist" outfit the legionaires of christ, Marcial Maciel. This chap was much favoured by the previous pope.
Why wasnt he brought before a court of law and thus thrown into to prison for the rest of his life?
Do a Google on the sex lives of the popes - you know the chaps that are supposed to be infallible and icons of christ.
Posted by Daffy Duck, Wednesday, 19 September 2012 10:42:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'd be very surprised to learn that non-judgemental teaching about homosexuality isn't already in the school curriculum. I'd be bloody astonished to learn that legalising gay marriage had any effect on that curriculum and the way it was presented. The reason that children should be taught that "sexuality of whatever nature is deemed to be inherently equal and morally valid" -- assuming that means 'between consenting adults' -- is because it IS, by rational people, and nobody has yet put forward a genuine argument, as opposed to a religious argument, to show that it isn't.

Really, how much further down are theist bigots going to dig for their pathetic arguments? They're way past the bottom of the barrel and heading for the Antipodes.
Posted by Jon J, Wednesday, 19 September 2012 10:56:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Now, let's answer Greg's question. Some children have two mummies and they are lucky and some children have two daddies and they are lucky too. Some children have a mummy and a daddy... See, it isn't that hard is it?
Posted by jeffg, Wednesday, 19 September 2012 11:37:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Firstly, I'm inclined to agree with Diver Dan and Noelreg. Secondly, it is a real shame that public debate around such a complex issue as redefining the institution of marriage has basically been reduced to 'it is right' and 'it is wrong.'

I have heard little in the way of intelligent argument by either side in the debate. The research being cited by both sides is heavily wieighed down by ideology and therefore spurious. I am reasonably certain that with the lack of deep analysis of the future implications of legislating same sex marriage there will be unforeseen circumstances arise in terms of legal precedence. How can we reasonably judge how dangerous to the social fabric those unforeseen circumstances might be?

It is all very well for us to be told that the current situation is 'inequitable' and therefore 'discriminatory' towards the homosexual population. But do you need to have 'equality' in every sense and context to be treated 'equitably'? I remain to be convinced.

I therefore think it would be best if the bills currently before Parliament(s) are defeated, in the hope that this will necessitate both sides having to adopt more adequate arguments prior to any future public debates.
Posted by Ian D, Wednesday, 19 September 2012 12:27:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“I invite those advocating for the change to the Marriage Act to explain to me and the public why they believe it is appropriate that children in our schools should be presented with this material and information.

I issue this challenge not to be provocative, scaremongering, or to suggest that one cannot make a case for teaching this material. I personally do not believe that it should be taught in schools; others would disagree.”

This is the crux of Donnelly’s argument and it has its basis in a narrow religious view of heterosexuality which he spreads to homosexuality.

It wishes to keep any kind of effective sex education away from students. It is the extension of the ‘abstinence’ mantra which has been shown not only that it doesn’t work; it produces the opposite results to that intended. As well as adding to the misery of a confused humanity.

No surprise there, keeping people ignorant about any matter, with importance in the real world, say ‘abstinence’ about driving a car has known consequences.

How can anyone who is opposed to teaching effective sex education and is locked into the 'Adam and Eve and not Adam and Steve' mindset even contemplate teaching students about the fluidity of human sexuality.

People are sexual beings, orientation is pre-determined and therefore equality should be common-sense.

There are some Parliamentarians affected by the religious gene on this matter and there are others being bullied by religious thugs into conforming to their antiquated wishes.

Separation of Church and State has surrendered to a soft theocracy in Australia.

Remember this next time you vote.

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Wednesday, 19 September 2012 12:32:57 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This essay is also essentially related to today's report about Cory Bernadi claiming that such changes will inevitably lead to calls for the legalization of bestiality.
But what is wrong with bestiality?
Better to screw your donkey, dog, turkey, black duck, or hamster than to rape a woman.

If you do a Google on the topic you will find that it has a very interesting multi-cultural history.
Posted by Daffy Duck, Wednesday, 19 September 2012 2:15:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I offer an alternative, a new Marital Act, similar to but separate from the Marriage Act. Why? To enable those joined in commitment under this new and separate Act to be able to say "Yes, I'm married". And, isn't this really what it's all about, the ability to say I am, or we are, 'married', or for any children to be able to say, "Yes, my parents are married"? (Perhaps such an Act could also present an acceptable alternative to de facto couples - whose children are currently unable to say their parents are married.)

Why bother? Well, it would appear that some will never be satisfied with a Civil Union, so perhaps we can offer something better.

Universal 'marriage' is not currently attained or attainable in our society, and we may expect this condition to continue, so why propose another marital Act? Answer - for the children. Whether we like it or not, some will always have concerns about the efficacy of same sex couples raising a family, and are not such concerns justifiable? Even some heterosexual couples have exhibited poor judgement, or have embarked on having a family for the wrong reasons, but we cannot expect to be able to legislate in order to minimise such errors.

However, appropriate provisions in a Marital Act may act to alleviate concerns regarding the fitness of same sex couples to raise a family - by requiring appropriate psychological assessment in order to acquire access to adoption, surrogacy, AI, donor or in-vitro services. Why? Well, face it, raising a family is a very great commitment, and not all will be up to it. So, why single out same sex couples for particular attention? Simply, in the interests of the children. Is this a biased view? Yes, but I believe a justifiable one.

Hence, a Marital Act, but with protective provisions in the best interests of the children.

Does our society do enough currently to fully protect the rights of the children? No. Thence, should we now propose to do even less? I think not. Hence, discretion is indeed warranted - IMHO.
Posted by Saltpetre, Wednesday, 19 September 2012 3:56:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I was always very direct with my kid's as far as sexual education went.

I knew that because they went to a private Catholic school, they would never get a 'worldly' view on subjects such as abortion, euthanasia, homosexuality and sex before marriage.,
So I gave them the facts on these issues myself, in a non-judgmental , non-religious way.

They have all grown up with very wide views of our world, and are very accepting of the differences in the people living around them.
The sky never fell in, and they never 'chose' to become gay , despite this 'education', so I wouldn't worry too much about educating children about real life after gay marriage becomes legal....
Posted by Suseonline, Wednesday, 19 September 2012 4:59:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jeffg has answered more questions than the just one Greg poses in the article. It answers most of those following:

"Some children have two mummies and they are lucky and some children have two daddies and they are lucky too. Some children have a mummy and a daddy ... See, it isn't that hard is it?"

Yes. Very nicely put, Jeff.

We might then look at countries which have had same-sex marriage for some time, and those which have open education on issues relating to sexual orientation and see how they are faring.

They seem to be doing better than restrictive nations with regard to violence, health profiles, social cohesion and child-rearing outcomes.
Posted by Alan Austin, Wednesday, 19 September 2012 10:29:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
greg's article seems to point out the major difference between lapsed and practising catholics. i hope my mob has a bit more compassion.
Posted by peter mills, Thursday, 20 September 2012 12:22:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The whole deal about same sex marriage is a non-sequiter. The law already recognises that two people who live together and share the same bed have the same rights as those who are legally married. They are not discriminated against by the state. It is only the various churches who discriminate, and as time passes, even the Catholic church will see the error of its ways, in much the same way as it no longer forgives its priests for their sexual transgressions against their altar boys. In my youth, unmarried people who shared their bed on a permanent basis were regarded as "living in sin", but in general this attitude no longer prevails. It just takes time for the church to catch up with the world. Evolution is a slow continuing process.
Posted by VK3AUU, Thursday, 20 September 2012 11:01:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sorry I got off topic a bit.
The teaching in the schools is already proceeding down the path about which the author complains. The passing of the proposed changes to the Marriage Act will have absolutely no effect on that.
David
Posted by VK3AUU, Thursday, 20 September 2012 11:05:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If i were a labor supporter i would hope that my representatives would be able to mount a more coherent argument than this. an argument that would be based upon logic and which would be free of prejudice and hypocrisy.
Posted by shal, Friday, 21 September 2012 1:01:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In the comments above, some have denigrated the author as prejudiced, extremist, uncompassionate and judgemental. Others have argued that it will be a good thing to have "non-judgemental teaching about gay-marriage" in schools. None have argued against the author's central thesis.

As has happened overseas, and as Greg as argued, if the Marriage Act is changed to include homosexual marriage then there will be a continuing push to "non-discrimination" in all teaching about marriage, whether that teaching be in government or non-government schools or in other institutions. This would appear to be an undeniable fact. That being given, what are the consequences for freedom of conscience and freedom of religion?

Let's have a constructive conversation on this very pertinent question.
Posted by mykah, Monday, 24 September 2012 10:56:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy