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 > Learning from the past and understanding the present > Comments

Learning from the past and understanding the present : Comments

By Sven Trenholm, published 26/9/2017

The balance of evidence from the strongest research, with large representative sampling, does not support same-sex parenting.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All
“ Yet today, social scientists recognise the harm these changes cause to many children and society as a whole.”

Bugger the socials scientists; what about ordinary, free thinking citizens who are capable of making up their own minds – those who haven't allowed themselves to be put into a coma so that social scientists/engineers and politicians can think for them. Only the manipulators and idiots believe that fake marriage and same-sex parenting is acceptable.

The same mind control that kept a large part of the world under the yoke of Communism for so long is now occurring in the West. No wonder a refugee from Soviet-controlled Poland writes that the current mind-games now being played in Australia by “the Left in general and same-sex marriage bullies in particular have inspired a deeply unsettling sense of deja vu.”

We are currently experiencing the worst excesses of liberal-democracy. The individual has been overrun by pressure groups clamouring for more 'freedom', for more 'equality', for more 'tolerance'. And, all are supposedly 'different' politicians are singing the same song, eager to ingratiate themselves with the noisiest mob.

At least China is honest with its 'one party system'.
Posted by ttbn, Tuesday, 26 September 2017 7:19:23 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
Hmmm, I guess its sort of fun to complain about the latest progressive experiments and list the damage previous ones have done to a people. But at the same time churches could also focus on the root cause of the problem and its amendment, ie. 'The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth'
Posted by progressive pat, Tuesday, 26 September 2017 7:54:50 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
SSM And parenting? What are you suggesting?

Cloned kids using extremely expensive science to in effect, combine two sets of similar gender specific genetic material, to produce (a) child(ren)?

And could even be incubated in a male gender tummy, via a grafted vein(s)? Either example is actually within the bounds of possibility! Even if extremely unlikely and enormously expensive!

That said, many same sex couplings are also parents, from previous couplings/marriage. And no better nor worse as representative parenting examples as opposite sex couplings!

Opinions vary and expert, if apparently biased opinion, can be extracted to say, whatever the interviewer, wants it to say?

In any event, if a childless SS couple wanted to adopt? Or arrange a surrogacy, they still need to go through the myriad (proper parents) checks, balances! And possibly biased organizations/religious institutions, as applicable to ALL other applications!

And if for any verifiable and provable, or economic reason, found unsuitable? Simply denied!

If there going to be no end to this conflation or confection and fear mongering BS, around SSM, by the NO case?

If 90% of the survey is over and done!? What can you achieve now? Other than to stir up ignorant hatred and fear!? Is that the real, [gay bashing,] goal?

Bring on the next election!
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Tuesday, 26 September 2017 8:49:23 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
Progressive Pat

I take it from your quip your suggesting Governments in the past promoted Christianity, and then regretted the fact.

The reason Governments stepped back from promoting the Christian Church in Australia, is the competition between differing segments for Government support. It was not a decision based on ideology.

The first colonial church was funded by the Government. During this process it found difficulty funding one group and not funding another.
To solve the problem (initially), it established that the Church of England would be the official religion of the new Colony.

This move also became problematic, and by the time of writing the constitution, the result was to step back altogether by issuing this document in support of all religion generally.

Unfortunately for all religions in Australia, this edict is virtually useless.
With only one Australian state, Tasmania, with a protective clause in its constitution, aimed at protecting religious belief and giving their followers the right to perform their religious beliefs unhindered by persecution, (from the gay lobby, most notably at present). There is little any religion can do to ward off this attack. Gays will be given what they wish, by additional overriding State laws, which will ignore the Commonwealth constitution!

Becoming increasingly obvious is, to escape the Marxist attack on this country, like Napoleon, white Christian Australians will be forced to exile themselves on an island; Tasmania.

That should make you happy Pat!
Posted by diver dan, Tuesday, 26 September 2017 8:58:07 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 group of over 300 Australian doctors who opposed the AMA support of SSM had exactly the same argument about the lack of scientific data supporting gay parenting. The truth is that only the few large, random selected studies with measurable outcomes have given a scientifically based outcome for these kids, and show they do not do as well as children from biologically intact families.
However, for anyone who wishes to disregard those few studies, there is a wealth of evidence about the outcomes of children raised without fathers, with appalling results.
Fatnerless kids account for the majority of teen suicides, juvenile offenders, teen mothers, school drop outs, drug and alcohol abusers, people with mental health problems, chronically unemployed. Etc.
And no, that does not mean all kids with single mothers turn out badly, but their chances of having good outcomes are much reduced compared to kids from biologically intact families.
And this is nothing to do with love, or support or good parenting. It's all about the lack of one biological parent and the essential contribution that parent makes to its child's future.
Posted by Big Nana, Tuesday, 26 September 2017 10:15:10 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
Sorry diver dan, i didnt know all that. I guess it makes you think if a constitution can prohibit christianity there's no reason why a constitution couldn't promote christianity, on the other hand. Its kind of surprising why most Christians are happy to live under a secular framework but not a Christian framework...but again thanks for helping me to learn these stuffs.
Posted by progressive pat, Tuesday, 26 September 2017 10:37:20 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
Regressives murder the unborn babies so its no surprise in their selfishness kids well being is well beneath their own selfishnes
Posted by runner, Tuesday, 26 September 2017 11:32:00 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 hope progressive Pat realises where her argument leads ?
The next step will be to make it unconstitutional to fail to recognise a Muslim's marriage 2 and 3 and 4.--would that not be "marriage equality".
If "marriage" has nothing to do with nurture and education of children, how do you rationally deny a "marriage" between sister and brother, brother and brother, father and daughter etc?
Do you think that there is no reason for the world to be split among poor third world, communist stifled second world and rich first world.?
The obvious reason is that all inventions and innovation from the steam engine to the internet and rockets to Mars have come from a culture with the nuclear family as its fundamental building block. That nuclear family provides the means to nurture and educate children to their maximum potential and it is the maximum of that potential which produces those inventions and innovations.
It is not because of what is written in a book we call the bible, which is mostly nonsense written by ancient ignorant flat earthers.
Japan is part of the first world and China and India are quickly heading that way. They have adopted the nuclear family as the basic building block of society.

That building block has been reinforced by the myth of romantic love, Jane Austen boy meets, loses, finds girl romance as well as the Christian concept of marriage.
A decent nuclear family's income is income spread over its members and, at divorce equal division of accumulated wealth is the norm. A nuclear family's income should be taxed in accordance with how it is spent and enjoyed as a unit at twice the income of both partners less a fxed amount per child. But that involves recognising the special position of a nuclear family as a procreative capble couple or a couple which has in fact bound itself to rear a chid- all of whom have nominated to be so taxed.

Shallow thinking will destroy our prosperity.
Posted by Old Man, Tuesday, 26 September 2017 3:04:51 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
Oops, Old Man made an error. A nuclear family should be taxed at twice the tax of half of the joint income less an amount for each supported child.
Sorry.
Posted by Old Man, Tuesday, 26 September 2017 3:09:34 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
Oh dear, same sex parenting isn't quite as optimal as a complete nuclear family.

Yet children are routinely deprived of a full set of biological parents for so many reasons. Shall we get surveyed on the banning of any form of early death, or of divorce. Are we *sure* that disallowing divorce would be beneficial? Shall parents be immune to conscription, or be exempt from work requirements that separate families? Just *how* shall we guarantee that no avoidable parent loss occurs?

It is noise anyway, as same sex couples *already* raise children. Legal and unambiguous marriage will enhance the ability of such families to maintain control of their situation if sad circumstances arise, such as severe illness or death.

As it is, parents are already allowed greater scope (even the right) to influence their children's development and outcomes through their many uncontroversial and uncontestable lifestyle choices: location, diet, peculiar religious beliefs, choice (or lack of choice) of local schools, degree of supervision, adherence to vaccination plans, teaching dental hygiene, refusing basic education in sexual health, you name it. It would be a rare gay couple that could not better the parlous conditions we tolerate for other children.

If you are *really* concerned for the children, then consider a consistent child endowment programme that is not linked to adversarial custody contests, and provide consistent family support that recognises the genuine existing diversity rather than an unachievable and imaginary ideal that has never been universal. Perhaps an ungrudging endowment would even help reduce those dreadful abortions.
Posted by Rusty Catheter, Tuesday, 26 September 2017 3:38:47 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
Rusty Catheter

You presented an argument for gay marriage based on a perception (you have highlighted), that there exist an excess of children in society orphaned, and therefore gay couples are “needed” for this nurturing process.

Conventional heterosexual unions create children. In normal circumstances, these children are a by-product of a loving relationship.
Both the parents hold (quite naturally), a full intention of nurturing the child product, as a fruit of that loving relationship.

The key word is product. It is actually a natural biological function in the animal kingdom (which includes man), to mate with the opposite sex, to achieve the by-product of the mating process. Procreation.

The biological norm, after the mating process, and a prodigy results, is for the parents of that prodigy, to nurture the infant into self sufficiency.

If, for some reason of natural intervention by misadventure, the parents are removed from the nurturing process, the extended family of that unfortunate infant, are the next in line to take responsibility for the process of nurturing.

I fail to see why (using your logic), it would ever be necessary for homosexual same sex couples to become involved, and how that involvement would ever be necessary or beneficial to the child
Posted by diver dan, Tuesday, 26 September 2017 6:16:42 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
Bring on the next election!
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Tuesday, 26 September 2017 6:58:50 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
Diver Dan,

I think you are stretching things a little here, to no useful purpose.
A very common argument put forward by the "No" camp is that same sex marriages would specifically deprive children of parenting by one or another gender. So does life, all too often. Gay partnerships happen too, "banning" them on the basis that children will lack a certain type of parent will not solve the problem of fatherless or motherless children. They are not orphans at all till they lose both parents.

I do not propose that gay parents are "needed. I'm stating as documented fact that they are doing so now anyway. Their children might be step children to one partner (common in many families), Their children may be adopted, they might have taken on the children of close relatives now deceased or unable. What of it?

Banning gays from marrying does nothing to address children lacking a specific sex parent in the greater community. Legalising it may provide greater stability in those instances where it is already happening, and in future instances that are likely to occur at a similar rate as present.

Too many children are currently successfully raised by non-biological parents for your quibble to matter. Gays may *be* the extended family and entirely as eligible and fit as any others to fill the role. Pretending they cannot and will not is not meaningful when they can and do. All it can do is artificially limit recognition and services that might otherwise help, hardly a noble goal.
Posted by Rusty Catheter, Tuesday, 26 September 2017 10:15:59 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
When the no case is reduced to fear mongering BS? And conflated to include meaningless hypotheticals that may never ever happen?

And never ever as a result of a small change in the law, to essentially make it say, what it said for nigh on a hundred years, before John Howard had it amended in 2004!

As for the endlessly conflating No's?

They've not only lost the plot, but the civil and oh so courteous debate.

I was raised by a part time single mum and spent 3 years in a orphanage, when she nearly died. Then at other intervals, numerous 6-12 months terms, in various foster homes, where I was at times exposed to unbelievable violence and abuse.

Abuse that included daily floggings and knock down knuckle sandwiches and worse, That only stopped with exhaustion; from "normal hetrosexuals" and extremely devout (fine, upstanding and perpetually pious) christians.

In truth, during those times, the only genuine kindness and care that I remember, came from, despised gays. None of who, would qualify as hated peadophiles.

Row, row, (Rant, rant, rant) your boat, scurrilously up the sewer, life is but a, nightmare [reeducation camp for those who resist and refuse the medieval stone age, flat earth, fact and evidence free, brainwashing and its hellbound aftermath!]

Bring on the next election.
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Wednesday, 27 September 2017 7:00:58 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
RC

You have highlighted the absurdity of tolerating homosexual normalcy.
Posted by diver dan, Wednesday, 27 September 2017 7:12:55 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 disagree Dan,

I have pointed out that even by your proposed mechanism of raising orphans by blood relatives, child raising by gay couples is happening and unavoidable.

What you have failed to do is demonstrate that something that already happens is somehow unable to happen. You have also failed to show that banning gay marriage will prevent children from lacking one-or-another sex parent. Since such cases occur, complaining about one of many remedies as if it was a cause is pointless. Providing frameworks to support children regardless of the family situation would be far more fruitful. Don't tell us what you refuse to do to help, tell us what you will do to assist.
Posted by Rusty Catheter, Wednesday, 27 September 2017 9:05:23 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
Hi Rusty,

That sounds like it hurts :)

De facto couples already raise children, perhaps as happily as married couples do. Do their children suffer any legal impediments ? Are they at any sort of legal disadvantage ?

If couples, hetero or homo, want to live together without marrying, perhaps 'inheriting' children from the existing or previous marriage of one or both, then what are the legal impediments to their doing so ? Are there any ? What advantages would marriage confer ?

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Wednesday, 27 September 2017 4:48:36 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
Loudmouth,

Don't get the wrong end...

The thread started with an analysis (post hoc) allegedly showing children of same sex couples were marginally worse off than those of idealised biological parents.

Perhaps so, but so what?

All the families you mention, plus gays, are raising children now and are acceptable (indeed unavoidable) under long-established Australian law. Any disadvantages they may have are not sufficient grounds to ban them. In any case, few anti-SSM campaigners are falling over themselves to demand legislation that will unstintingly support and assist such to reduce the disadvantage.

Conflating gay marriage with diminished outcomes for childraising, rather than *other* more broadly applicable known causes is simply bogus. Since denying marriage to gays contains no mechanism to improve the lot of children generally, the welfare of such children is hardly an argument against gay marriage.

We supposedly support the idea that people should enjoy as much personal liberty as possible, consistent with avoiding overt harm to others, indeed we tolerate quite a bit of risk and harm rather than curtail some "freedoms". There is *no* harm to others in making marriage available to gays, and hence no reasonable argument to deny that freedom. Once married, those gay couples that raise children can enjoy the certainty of unfettered access to family resources in the event of death, as do married couples now, and freedom from the possibility of a vindictive next-of-kin deliberately "taking over" and disrupting their family arrangements.

Those that feel "harmed" by losing the right to interfere in other's lives can with all due respect go to hell.
Posted by Rusty Catheter, Wednesday, 27 September 2017 10:29:07 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
Hi Rusty,

But none of that reasoning provides any necessary support for homosexual marriage: if couples, and children of such couples, can enjoy all the legislative benefits that exist for hetero couples who are married, and their kids, then what is the need for any of it ? If anything, the whole shebang is a pretty good advertisement for doing away with marriage: as long as couples with children undertake to look after them properly, then don't they enjoy equal benefits ?

As women's rights have improved, and their very existential security has become less and less under threat in cases of abandonment and destitution, with birth control, legalised abortion, single mother's benefits, higher education, etc., the need for the protection offered by 'marriage' has declined, to the point where it is little more than symbolic, just another category of people living together - church marriage, civil ceremony, hetero, homo, de facto, etc.

Let marriage wither away as relationships evolve and security concerns for women gradually disappear.

Cheers,

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Thursday, 28 September 2017 10:41:47 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
Congratulations, Sven, on your insightful expose of the way some researchers, including some peer-reviewers employed by respected journals, have corrupted the scientific method in their quest to affirm their ideology.
Posted by Edmund Burke, Thursday, 28 September 2017 10:12:12 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
The decline in objectivity in leading journals reflects poorly on referees and publishers. And the biased reporting by the media is in breach of journalists' code of ethics. The situation is reminiscent of Hans Christian Andersen's tale "The Emperor's New Clothes".
Posted by Leibnitz, Thursday, 28 September 2017 11:27:50 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
Rusty Catheter, "There is *no* harm to others in making marriage available to gays"

Why should single workers be forced through their salary and wage agreements and superannuation to subsidise the 'love' choices of fellow workers with married status?

It is a double penalty since two can live much more cheaply than one, eg housing and unlike the married husband and wife of decades ago, where the wife could not continue employment in the public services for instance, in modern times the participation of women in tertiary education exceeds men and women still enjoy 'positive' affirmative action enhancing their already excellent employment and advancement prospects.

Few homosexual couples might have child support responsibilities and where they do, the number of children in the household can reasonably expected to be fewer. In short, homosexual couples would usually have both free for employment.

In another thread a poster kindly posted this link detailing the broad range of 'relationship' status that can claim married benefits from government, business and employers. Jolly good for them and any wonder homosexuals in government employment and politicians especially would be very keen to get the entitlements, eg partner accompanied travel.

But what about the singles who are missing out on the lurks and perks, but are forced to subsidise them through wage agreements and taxes? How do singles survive and many of them are on low wages or fixed incomes?

The always forgotten singles must vote 'NO!'. It is their only rational choice.
Posted by leoj, Saturday, 30 September 2017 11:03:16 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, the link that shows the spectrum of couplings that can be used to attract married benefits from government, business and employers,

Australian Government on relationships

www.humanservices.gov.au/individuals/enablers/your-relationship-status
Posted by leoj, Saturday, 30 September 2017 11:06:19 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
Leoj,

<Why should single workers....>

I don't know Leoj? Why *are* they? Because they retain the option of gorging at this alleged horn of plenty?

Your efforts to ban heterosexual marriage are conspicuously absent.Perhaps you should seek "married" status for a non-sexual but similarly-committed union with the aim of achieving household economies? In any case, nothing is stopping singles from cohabiting "as cheaply as one" if they like, even when they are the same sex. Good luck proving that a married couple that is *not* cohabiting can somehow achieve such economies.

Double-income households could be formed by singles, as above. Married people in ordinary paid employment are unable to use the option of "income splitting" unless they incorporate and divert director's fees to the non-working partner. This only works for self-owned businesses. So no great advantage for the general population there.

<Few homosexual couples might have child support...>
Heterosexual couples had the *choice* of being childless, though many on this forum would deny them a last-chance to change their minds. In any case, if by mischance or donation a homosexual becomes a parent, they enjoy the same child support burden of any other parent. Their *choices* are not curtailed, and it is not as if the there is a special gay legal exemption to the risks of child support.

< the broad range of 'relationship' status...>
By all means avail yourself of any of the relationships that enjoy such status. Clearly gay marriage would only expand your options, and would improve your chances of qualifying. Or perhaps you can be adopted and enjoy an additional parental funeral too ("how many grandmothers do you have?" asks the bursar). Why should intimate partners not be recognised as reasonable grounds for time off if sick or bereaved? No employer worth your time or loyalty would try it.
As for partner travel lurks, I think it runs much more on how highly the company regards it's employee. Most institutions draw the line at their own staff only, for the duration of work only.

I'd swap for single, and I'd still support gay marriage.
Posted by Rusty Catheter, Saturday, 30 September 2017 10:29:00 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
//("how many grandmothers do you have?" asks the bursar)//

:)

If memory serves, Corporal "Nobby" Nobbs of the Ankh-Morpork City Watch is entitled to at least three 'Grandmother's funerals' per year.
Posted by Toni Lavis, Sunday, 1 October 2017 12:32:51 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
Hi Toni,

I'm slow this morning, but was that an attempt at humour. Ho ho, I think.

But you make an interesting point: the self-indulgent classes will - as in China - have few or no children, and of course homosexual relationships support that trend, notwithstanding some token homosexuals demanding IVF because they love children so much. So, yes, each child will, in time, have many more grandparents than those grandparents have grandchildren.

Without being too apocalyptic about it, the logic of childless relations leads to an accelerating reduction in population from one generation to the next. Australia already has sub-ZPG, balanced only by a comparatively large migrant population. So we can already see a slowing-down, or halting, in the growth in the Australian-born population. Half of the population growth from one Census to the next is made up by migrants, from all over the world, around 200,000 per year, roughly balancing our annual birth-rate.

From one generation to the next, demographic change can be very rapid, and perhaps irreversible. Bernard Salt would have a much more informed contribution to make here. But the simple logic of childlessness, or one child families, is eventual (say, in two or three generations, population reduction
Without being too apocalyptic about it, the logic of childless relations leads to a reduction in population from one generation to the next. Australia already has sub-ZPG, balanced only by a comparatively large migrant population. So we can already see a slowing-down, or halting, in the growth in the Australian-born population. Half of the population growth from one Census to the next is made up by migrants, from all over the world, around 200,000 per year, roughly balancing our annual birth-rate.

From one generation to the next, demographic change can be very rapid, and perhaps irreversible. Bernard Salt would have a much more informed contribution to make here. But the simple logic of childlessness, or one child families, is eventual (say, in two or three generations) population reduction, perhaps catastrophically. We'll see with the disastrous Chinese experiment, by about 2050.

Cheers,

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Sunday, 1 October 2017 9:46:17 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All

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