Bah humbug, balderdash, bird's fur and horse feathers!

As always with these brainwashed for birth, Troglodytes. The science/evidence is simply ignored in favor of endlessly repeated (flat earth) stone age dogma and ideology.

In any event, many divorcees would take issue with most of this single sex parenting, risible rubbish?

As for swaying my vote with this patent propaganda?

To late Sir and how dare you conflate SSM, with, as you put so very conveniently, homosexual parenting!

What are you trying to infer? That people who are born different, might have or want a sexual relationship with their children? Or maybe their dogs, horses, pigs or camels?

Bring on the next election and a return to focusing on actual issues that actually matter. AFFORDABLE ENERGY AND HOUSING. REAL JOBS AND GOOD GROWTH!

And an end to using hapless folk, unfortunate enough to be born different, and a crime in many glazed over blinkered eyes, and a very convenient political football!

Turn or bury your head, close your eyes and karate chop the air as vigorously as you can, with both hands! And or, just spit foam laden invective into the faces of folk, who simply cannot in all good conscience, share your fact free dogma!

ENOUGH PUNISHMENT/SOCIAL INJUSTICE ALREADY! AND TIME FOR THE EVIDENCE, THERE FOR ALL WITH EYES AND EARS TO SEE AND HEAR, TO DECIDE THIS ISSUE, IN THE AFFIRMATIVE!
Alan B.

Dear Alan B.,

The art of reasoned, intelligent argument is a skill
not easily acquired. It is always best to argue in a
logical manner because sound reasoning will conquer
unreasonable generalisations every time. We don't
want to appear to be arguing on an emotional level
instead of a mature intelligent one.

I understand you have strong feelings on this subject.
As do I. However, I've learned from Tiernan Brady
that we'll get much further if we show respect for
the opinions of those who happen to disagree with our
point of view. Even though at times this may not be
an easy thing to do due to the nonsense that is being
put out by some over zealous people.

Anyway, I'll get down from my soap-box and continue to
try to take my own advice on this issue. No-one likes
or supports an abusive, illogical or weak debater.
The author of this article will undoubtedly learn this
from experience.

I have been through many of the studies spoken about here and it is correct, they all contain many flaws and nearly all are based on questionaires filled in by volunteer lesbians mothers, hardly an impartial source of information.
So it is not possible to assess how successful gay parenting is by looking at these studies. And until same sex parenting has been around for a few decades in bigger numbers, we won't have studies that give measurable outcomes.
However, long before same sex parenting became an issue, many studies were being done on outcomes for children raised without fathers, because professionals had come to realise these children were featuring in all the negative situations in the community.
All research shows that children growing up without fathers have higher incidence of mental health disorders, suicide, criminal activity, addiction problems, relationship problems, lower academic achievements, lower incomes as adults etc.
Some of these problems can be attributed to some single parent famiies having lower incomes, but not all the problems.
Professionals have long known that mothers and fathers bring different parenting styles into a child's life as well as providing positive same sex role models. Girls growing up without fathers come into puberty younger, are more at risk for teen pregnancy and tend to make poor choices of partners, all apparently in their search for a missing father figure.
This is not about gay people not being loving, protective parents. No one has ever said that gay people are any different to heterosexuals in their love or care for children.
This is all about the lack of one or two biological parent from a child's life and the associated problems that brings.

If the NO campaign continue to resort to dubious claims about gay parenting, we'll almost certainly end up with a YES outcome. It's not about the children, and if it were I'd be voting YES.

But this vote is about values.

If you think gender really doesn't matter, and that once your kids are grown up (and discover they're bisexual) you think it's no better for them to spend the rest of their life with someone of the opposite sex than with someone of the same sex, vote YES.

But if you consider same sex relationships to be ersatz, vote NO.

Can someone please let the author know that a person does not have to be married to be a parent. Therefore, trying to conflate parenting with same-sex marriage is pointless and a diversion. Typical of the 'vote no' brigade's tactics thus far. Distract and divert from the issue. Weak and pathetic.

The article dismayed me. Well written and articulate, but in not putting forward a reasonable case for voting no it fails to convince or validate the author's position.

Denying the other's position by repeatedly questioning validity, authenticity and of the lacking of 'absolute' poof has been the time honoured technique of the deniers of change and of questioning a 'status quo' position aka James Hardy, Big Tobacco, climate change...

I am sure there are many valid reasons for voting no. Just give them, and let those who are promoting yes give there's.

As it stands to this point the no'ers have only tried to sow disquiet, and place a sanctity on an institution that is simply a social construct... one that that is discriminatory.
I am going to vote, give me your position to consider
MN

Strong views Foxy? Absolutely!

For starters, we are not being asked to judge homosexual love, with all the connotations, just whether two people who love or are already in a loving relationship, ought be allowed to marry? A virtual birthright for everyone else!

I must admit, I'm no fan of gay men kissing each other in public. But that's another issue. I'm equally embarassed by a hetrosexual couple doing similar. Adults who want consensual conjugal relations? Ought get a room!

Furthermore, absolutely abhor hedonistic men of all sexuality, who live only for themselves and privileged "unprotected" hedonistic lifestyles!

Thus I have issues with slimy weasels, who jump bail rather than face taking responsibility for their actions?

e.g., If someone like Julian Assange was to marry and wanted to adopt kids? And you had the choice between him a couple of exemplary SS citizens, who would rather see raise those kids? The hedonist or responsible adults?

As for whether or not, we agree with single parents raising kids?

I was raised by a single deserted mum. Not everyone has a choice! Moreover, my biological Father knew where I was and simply couldn't be bothered!

However, paid a visit a couple of years before he tottered of the mortal coil, while mum listed the remarkable things I'd achieved, while he listened with apparent indifference.

Yes I think wherever poss. Kids should know their biological parents!

But if you're in an orphanage/gulag for unwanted kids, then a couple of same sex parents, would be a huge improvement!

And subject to the same rigorous standards/character content as applicable to all intending parents.

From time to time was fostered by hetrosexual couples. And received treatment so brutal, you'd have to see to believe.

So, If a SS couple could have been allowed to take on an unwanted/unaffordable kid and provided far safer shelter and exemplary care?

Why exclude them on the basis of completely unfounded prejudice/bias?

Which seems to be the conflating, patently biased, if polite and civil, author's intention?
Y'all have a nice day now, y'hear.
Alan B.

Ja Alan B.

Es wird gesprochen.

Assange, black threads, unt SS* goose-steppen.

* http://youtu.be/MD6oDnm43HA

Groovy Mein Führer!

There is a very good reason to vote no: the Turnbull government won't tell you what it is you'll get in the subsequent legislation. Nor will Labor, the Nationals or the Greens tell you.

Indeed, Turnbull's lot say they won't produce legislation at all, but will wait for a private member's bill to be produced. That's another way of saying, "not our fault".

The only conclusion you can draw from all that is that the powers that be know very well that if their intentions were public, nobody would vote yes.

So, vote yes if you wish, but don't pretend that the parliament will protect civil freedoms and freedom of religion.

Just look at the problems caused by 18c and realise that that's the sort of thinking which will be applied on a much broader basis. After all, they've already begun the process with "temporary" restrictions on freedom of speech.

' So, vote yes if you wish, but don't pretend that the parliament will protect civil freedoms and freedom of religion.'

you sum it up well Calwest. The regressives have no problem at all lying. In every country where the marriage act has been fiddled/perverted with we see the results.

I'll be voting 'No' for entirely different reasons altogether. However someone herein claimed that a child brought up by a same sex couple are no different then one raised by a single family parent, and that's probably true.

From my working experience, children raised entirely by a mother without the guiding hand of a father, can often grow up with serious behavioural issues, especially at school and in the community. Conversely those raised essentially by the father alone, can also act just as defiantly and unruly often they're bullies.

The empirical evidence that I have gained over time, seemingly suggests the best way to avoid raising kids, without all the baggage that many of them have. It's undeniably better to have a good balance between, a mother's love and nurturance, together with a fathers gentle guidance and counselling, when necessary, a firm hand of admonishment.

Some of the kids we've literally had to physically remove from classrooms while the female and male teacher, often cringe behind their desk, abusing and threatening their teacher as we lead 'em away. Initially it used to shock me. That aside I believe, all our kids need a mother and a father, if they are to have the best chance they can in life, they all deserve.

A side issue to this debate...I do wonder why those of the same sex want to marry? To legitimise having children? Or is it to satisfy their own needs? Kids aren't like cute little puppies, if you don't like 'em after a couple of weeks, simply take them back to the pet shop or give them to the RSPCA. You've got them, your responsibility.

Hey calwest, how about you tell us about all the 'problems' Section 18c of the Racial Discrimination Act that have been caused. And those temporary restrictions you mentioned...well they are similar to what applies with election campaigns. Gonna complain about that too are you? Typical lies and diversions from the 'no' campaigners.

Dear Alan B.,

Thank You for sharing your feelings and
for explaining things.
I can't disagree with anything you wrote.

Quite predictable that we (majority?) old-middle aged blokes of OLO seem to be voicing majority "No".

Young people, who seem to be majority "Yes", have to tick those strange snail-mail forms and stickem in those odd red letterboxes.

The whole snail-mail voting method is looking like a cultural approach sure to minimise young progressive participation.

Reckon, unless there is more than a 60% "Yes" vote (nationally) our politicians will do nothing. The SSM issue will go the way of the Republic vote issue.

plantagenet raises the valid point that the whole process of the postal survey seems to have been designed to 'minimise' the response from younger people more used to responding to surveys online than actually using the postal system. That can be extended further and the whole concept is open to corruption...and as has been reported surveys have been offered for sale and others have been destroyed, or lost (even stolen), due to poor delivery practices.

As such, any result can be directly refuted by the 'losers' as not having any integrity. And they'd have a valid point. The government has created an 'unholy' mess and wasted $122 million going about it when all that is needed is simple legislative change. They have also created a precedent that may have adverse future ramifications.

minotaur:

A 'simple legislative change' that has cost years and years of debate and lobbying and a Senate enquiry? There has been nothing simple about it. It is only simple for those who think everyone should agree with their opinion.

Minotaur,

In relation to 18c, you must have dozed off and missed the court proceedings against Andrew Bolt; you must have been still asleep for the AHRC handling of the QUT students, when it could as easily have dismissed the allegations as trivial, as the court later found they were.

But there's no excuse for claiming that restrictions on free speech "are similar to what applies with election campaigns."

The Turnbull government's Orwellian "safeguards" go further than those required at elections: https://marriagesurvey.abs.gov.au/safeguards

The "safeguards" come with a long list of how to complain, which looks like urging to me.

From Senator Cormann's second reading speech:

"We certainly call on all Australians to participate in this debate with courtesy and respect.
"However, the government acknowledges that we cannot guarantee that all Australians will at all times express
their opinions on that basis.
"For this reason, the bill will also establish an offence for grievous conduct against those participating in the
debate, or against those who may hold strong views on the survey question.
"The bill contains provisions against vilification, intimidation and threat to cause harm, as well as for hindering or
interfering with a person in making a response, or discriminating against a person for making a donation relating
to the marriage law survey.
"Importantly, and I stress this point, merely expressing a view about the marriage law survey question does not
trigger the offence provisions against vilification, intimidation or the threat of harm. The conduct would have to
be vilification, intimidation or threat to cause harm."

GetUp! dropped its petition, with thousands of signatories, seeking to have Dr Pansy Lai deregistered. She also was "inundated" with telephone and social media threats. Ten days later they might all have been charged.

On the other hand, there's been nothing similar, as far as I can recall, from anybody on the No side.

You've also missed the point that the survey result is expected to lead to further legislation that nobody being surveyed has seen.

I just voted NO, and that is the end of it as far as I'm concerned. However, I will say that children need a mother and father, and two people of the same sex bringing up children is ridiculous, disgraceful, self-indulgent on the part of the 'adults' concerned, and a tragedy for any children brought up in a warped, same sex relationship. God help the poor little buggers.

And once again the total troll being nasty (ttbn) exhibits extreme ignorance and explicit homophobia. I'd say god help any children it may have had but I don't believe in god.

The results of this postal survey on same-sex marriage
should prove interesting. The Australian Electoral
Commission has finished processing nearly a million
changes to the roll including adding nearly 100,000
new people. Two-thirds of whom are around 25 years
of age. That leaves more than 16 million Australians
eligible to vote.

minotaur, you are not helping your case. ttbn is commenting, making points and giving views on the topic at hand. I fail to see why you have to come out spewing all this abuse just because ttbn is saying something YOU don't like. By responding the way you have you have both done the 'yes' camp a big dis-favour and shown yourself to be in-capable of having a mature verbal discourse.

ALTRAV, you got something right for once...I don't like vile homophobic rubbish that you and ttbn (among others) come up with. And as it is pointless trying to have any sort of rational debate with the likes of you and ttbn I need to keep my comments short and to the point so you can understand them...which you clearly did.

minotaur, knowing what the word 'vile' means I think you may be overreaching to make your point. All the NO camp is doing is making their points and opinions known to others so as to be open and transparent. I have been following this from the beginning, with a little break, and one thing has stood out. We in the NO camp are somehow bad people who deserve to die for not allowing the YES camp to have its way. I am perplexed at the amount of vilification and name calling when, by comparison, I do not see such performance from the NO camp, just points of debate or discussion. If we are homophobic then so be it, we don't shy away from that tag, we embrace it for reasons the YES camp do not wish to know. So I ask, if the YES camp can tone it down a little, we are obviously never going to agree because for the YES camp it would require a life changing journey. As for the NO camp, we just get up in the morning and get on with our lives.

As already noted by Minotaur, parenting does not require marriage - so that's indeed a pointless diversion. The number of children born to and/or raised by homosexual people will neither increase nor decrease as a result of them being formally declared as "married".

But not just parenting: NOTHING should require a legal marriage, thus nobody should be seeking to have it, including same-sex couples.

I was previously thinking that $122,000,000 was too dear, but having read some of the remarks here, I start to think that it could have been worthwhile after all:

If this is what it takes to separate young people from their silly devices and teach them to operate in the tangible world, then not all is wasted.

Electricity will not last forever (it's already faltering) and the internet will be hacked to the point of soon becoming unusable: young people should learn to live and operate in the tangible world!

Yuyutsu:

“But not just parenting: NOTHING should require a legal marriage, thus nobody should be seeking to have it, including same-sex couples.”

Those who do seek it show a lack of dignity and self-respect. Instead of standing up to governments and demanding their rights as citizens they avoid this by bowing down to the conditions placed on those rights by the government.

Nothing should lead to such demeaning behaviour – especially something as trite as government sanctioned marriage