Natural families and "normal" sexuality?

I much prefer the contents of this essay re the vexed situation of sexuality altogether.

http://www.dabase.org/freersex.htm

Plus a unique understanding of marriage as a profound calling and psycho-physical discipline.

http://www.dabase.org/2armP1.htm#ch3b

Plus an essay on the root cause of the disintegration of the family. Namely the adolescent "culture" of competitive individualism, of which Capitalism, especially in the USA, is easily the most advanced form.

http://www.dabase.org/sacrstat.htm

Demographic Winter? The human population is now approximately SEVEN BILLION.

That's amazing!

I never knew that by living my life as I do now, exactly the same as all the married married couples I know, I am so disadvantaged.

All I have to do is spend a day in a church and I will live longer and be healthier, my kids will be healthier in mind and body and get higher grades and be less likely to take drugs or go to jail.

Added to that, I can stick it up to would-be French Revolutionaries,Communists in Russia, German National Socialists and Maoists in China!

All this, just for going through a half hour ceremony, and signing a piece of paper.

I'm sold!

"First, allow me to explain what I mean by “natural marriage”. It doesn’t take more than a fourth-grade education to know that men’s and women’s bodies in some sense “complement” each other and this often leads to procreation. Natural marriage is between a man and a woman."

This coy explanation sounds like a very hydraulic understanding of the expression of sexual love. I guess these natural marriage advocates don't do the other stuff. Like Bill Clinton, it's not sex unless you get hydraulic.

What the author of this article is saying is that safe and stable relationships produce the best environment for children and for adults to prosper. Couldn't agree more.

However, to insist that "natural marriage" is the only way to create these safe and stable environments is rubbish.

What is it with these people? Like the Christians, it's their way or the highway. What is their problem with difference? Why are they so threatened by any lifestyle other than their own, that they have to threaten the rest of us with hellfire if we don't agree?

Societies collapse because they didn't observe "natural marriage" and so will we?
Oh, man.

Briar Rose

>> This coy explanation sounds like a very hydraulic understanding of the expression of sexual love. I guess these natural marriage advocates don't do the other stuff. Like Bill Clinton, it's not sex unless you get hydraulic. <<

ROFL

Well said, your post summed up my take on this article.

People eat better in marriage? That's worth a belly laugh. Though when the laughing ends its important to remember the phrase "correlation does not imply causation". Research shows an awful lot of things but its always worth reading carefully to understand what we can really take from it. We don't need to take direction from marginal findings that tell us very little. For instance, unmarried women with no children live longer, on average, than other demographically described individuals. Does that mean we ought not have children and men should have a sex change? I guess we should look at how much longer - a couple of decades or a couple of months? And longer for all - or, a marginally larger proportion of the unmarried, non-mother group lives marginally longer than any other group. Its great to see reference to evidence. But that alone aint good enough. Let's see the correction for social-economics. Doh! Didn't publish that. Now lets see the historical comparison where we compare outcomes based on socio-economics rather than on marriage. Doh! Never did research on that sort of stuff in the past so when we talk about the wonder of yesteryear - basically just making it up. Now lets think about the actual rate of marriage breakdown in the past which goes below the fact that divorce was first not legal and subsequently not affordable but separation happened all the time. Ahh .... there is a little bit on that. Interesting stuff. I can't imagine there's anything wrong with marriage beyond the refusal in many places to extend the invitation to all people in love. But why oh why do some marriage advocates feel the need to argue so hard against alternative models. Note to self: must remember to eat well. Well, that is, not lots.

Meanwhile the Howard Center promotes the American apple pie myth of the freedom loving, self-sufficient, rugged individualist, and his nuclear family, as the foundation of USA uniqueness/exceptionalism.

This is a myth, even a down right lie. A myth which hides a very dark shadow. But Americans (in particular) are not very good at seeing Reality True. They prefer anodyne soporific Morning in America speeches by the great communicator Ronald Reagan

These references provide an alternative perspective--there are of course countless others.

The Way We Never Were

http://www.stephaniecoontz.com/books/thewayweneverwere

Columbus and Other Cannibals

http://nas.ucdavis.edu/Forbes/CANNIBALS.html

American Holocaust

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/History/American_Holocaust.html

Plus the work of Vine Deloria Jr via God is Red, Red Earth/White Lies, and his work altogether

It is interesting that the term nuclear family only emerged after World War II, We all know how that ended.

Robert Oppenheimer, the "father" of the atomic bomb was named father of the year by the American Family Association. A very exemplary father indeed.

A bumper sticker I once saw in the USA.

The nuclear family is bomb waiting to explode.

Sadly I detect a hint of cowardice in Dr Carisons glaring omission to any mention of the onslaught to societies legitimate expectation that the definition of marriage remains firmly grounded in heterosexual union. No mention of the new age portentous posturing of the homosexual lobby which overlays, as a smothering cortex, those same expectations of a normal union in marriage: Or to such attempts by that group to add legitimacy to gay marriage with the cry of foul and petitions of human rights abuse that is witnessed by us all.
Apart from the above omission I would consider his speech timely and appropriate

Radical and Left queers and gays also oppose gay marriage. It is an instrument of the heteronormative state. Heterosexuals have only two forms of relationship- marriage and defacto. Queers have an infinite diversity in their kinship and relations. Why would anyone want something so alien and limiting as marriage. Only 30% of gay men are monogamous, there are no stats about lesbians. If it's about the money, then I'd say hets deserve some financial advantage as compensation.

Trisha - on queer and gay relationship: yes of course, good. But your take on heteros: only two forms of relationship? Of course not. And good.

"heteros have only two forms of relationship, marriage and de facto?"

I know that's not true.

There are heteros who aren't "normative"

Knowing a vast number of heteros who are anything but normative I can't agree with your assessment. Non hegemonic heterosexuality - you don't know about that?

Stereotyping heteros is no different from stereotyping other expressions of sexuality and love. That's the point at which radicalism joins forces with conservatism

Allan
Great to hear that you are a natural man and that you believe in having a natural marriage with a natural woman so that you can go forth and multiply your natural well-balanced, well-nourished, non-drug addicted offspring with no chance for error. What a perfect fit! Like a plug. Not the kind you buy from the supermarket, a good one from the hardware store with airtight suction so nothing can escape once you stick it in. Good tight control like a proper natural death us do part marriage. That's what you mean when you say 'natural' isn't it Allan?
Sounds like you must be blissfully happy AND naturally, very normal Allan.
Sitting on the train I recently read in MX (2010) that children brought up in families with two mothers (the L word) did better at school. Well! fancy that kind of natural social phenomenon occurring Allan! Better reign that one in before it takes on!

Well the evidence is in; the pages of OLO have been captured in a “night raid” by the homosexual lobby. Or has it? Or is this relentlessness of pro-gay opinion observed in these pages simply a result of demography. Or have I inadvertently entered through the looking glass into a land of clones. The clones of tweedle dee and tweedle dums. It appears no one has the courage to let each other go! Is that par for being homosexual? Or is it as the Seth “door knob”, Quote: Read the directions and directly you will be directed in the right direction! But which way seth Alice. In answer may I dare suggest “convention”.

Ahhh, the sweet voice of sanity amidst the phoney baloney queer cacophony.
Thank you Allan Carlson for expressing so clearly what we all know to be true.

I suspect the author actually means "historical" or "conventional" marriage rather than "natural" marriage. Because if you look close enough at what actually occurs in nature, you would conclude that marriage is not exactly natural. Paternity tests on what are considered pair-bonded for life birds return less-than-stellar results for the morality brigade.

The benefits of contractual pair-bonding that occur in human social convention certainly have a historical basis, however there are also many other historical circumstances that allowed such activity. One is that before the Industrial Age, average life expectancy was often less than half that of today. However there are also countless examples of how this convention has been really only the ideal and not a workable reality, especially not to be enshrined in law. There have been orphans and children living with their distant relatives, grandparents, extended families, adopted single parents etc. ad nauseum. This was because war, famine, disease, etc. were commonplace in many parts of the world.

The latest bout of relative tranquility seems to bring out the worst of the morality brigade, who like to rewrite history to suit themselves.

"For the first time in human history, natural marriage has to justify itself in democratic countries before the court of public opinion."

I didn't realise there was such an public backlash against "natural" marriage!

And I really don't like that term: "natural" marriage. My marriage was anything but natural!

In today's Australia there are a
number of existing alternatives to
traditional marriage and family arrangements,
such as single-parent families, cohabitation,
serial monogamy, reconstituted families,
childless couples, communes, "open" marriage,
gay couples and gay-parent families, and of
course - remaining single.

In today's Australia - it's a matter of
choice, and a range of alternatives
is tolerated in the context of growing individualism.
This trend looks like its here to stay.
Perhaps someone should have told the author of this article?

I'm guessing that 'natural' marriage is kind of like 'natural' religion, something somebody thunked up.

Anyways, my relationship is as au naturel as my partner and I can make it.

Foxy, m'dear, the author Allan Carlson is the "General Secretary" of the of the "World Congress of Families" check what the old dude has to say here in his talk about the "Quiverfull Families", he wants women back on their backs, the kiddies quiet and men to be men (which all sounds very closet homo to me).

"Allan Carlson favours larger families of any background, even though he says he is, as he puts it, a "radical secularist".

Dr Carlson heads the Howard Center for Family, Religion and Society in Rockford, Illinois, a research group arguing that a shortage of children threatens the world economy.

He says many Quiverfull families want to undermine what they regard as a "contraceptive mentality" in the West.

"The historic Christian view, Protestant and Catholic, prior to 1930, was that both contraception and abortion were incompatible with Christian faith," he said.

Mr Carlson - who advocates a reversal of the industrial revolution and a return to home-based businesses centred on the family - says there is a strategic motivation behind the Quiverfull movement.

"There is a sense in which these intentionally created large families are seeing themselves as the… foundation of a counter-culture, which could grow, and should grow," he said."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8287740.stm

Just what this planet needs more humans.

Dear JR,

Thanks for that.

It explains a great deal.

I guess the author is entitled to his opinion,
but my goodness - it's looking at things
through a very narrow lens.

As Tor Hundloe points out in his book,
"From Buddha to Bono: Seeking Sustainability," :

"What's going to happen to the globe's carrying
capacity with an expected world population of
over nine billion. We will overshoot, and probably
seriously, the globe's carring capacity.
We will then suffer for ages, as will the natural
world, until we can reduce the human population and
return our ecosystems to sustainable health.
Once the human population peaks, the sooner we reduce the
total numbers, via sensible birth control (to probably
half the nine billion), the less environmental damage
we will need to repair. We don't need the pro-population
growth advocates talk us into their nonsense."

Briar Rose says:

//What is it with these people? Like the Christians, it's their way or the highway. What is their problem with difference? Why are they so threatened by any lifestyle other than their own//

You could have mentioned Muslims there too.. except that they HANG gays rather than just disapproving of their behavior.

The issue is this:

"It's OUR way".... where "our" is any group, Christian, Muslim, atheist or whatever.. who democratically assert "NO" to gay marriage.

Or the Highway... as in... if you have the votes you get the outcome you want.

Forgive us for being rather passionate about doing all we can to stop such abhorrent permissiveness becoming legally allowed in this society of which we happen to have an equal part in.

It 'is' our business because we live here. How we live 'is' your business because you do too.

The difference is, our 'way' and our values have history and theology on their side. The queer way has little but madi gras and debauched public displays of gratuitious public sex to commend it.

If you folks cannot see that a man and a woman is what marrige is and should be about.. don't expect any sympathetic hearing from our mob.

Aside from marriage.. be and do what you like... no skin of our nose, but it might land you in a rather challenging medical predicament.
No amount of hysterical denial or rampaging activism will change the fact that you will always be a small.. very small minority and last time I checked.. dogs don't like being wagged by their tails.

What Foxy, Briar Rose and Johnny Rotten said!

Above all, it is simply not true that heterosexual couples' kids do better than homosexual couples.

I don't see the author's logic.

If children of heterosexual couples do better when these parents are married than if they are not married, wouldn't it then logically follow that kids of same-sex couples would also do better if married?

Indeed, studies have indicated in countries where it is legal for same-sex couples to adopt children, that these children fare very well; either as well as children of heterosexual parents or even better!

This is an interesting article also:
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1994480,00.html

Study: Children of Lesbians May Do Better Than Their Peers

"The authors found that 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."

Something to think about, Allan!

The author and AGiR et al also seem to forget about the high divorce rates. If marriage is so perfect, then why is this the case?
Never mind how the kids of divorced parents are doing!

Oh and it would be greater than great if Allan could show us statistics that indicate that divorce rates are significantly lower among conservative Christians, who are, after all, the loudest defenders of marriage, than among, let's say, atheists.

Lol!

ALGOREisRICH, you people are in the minority on gay marriage - 60% of Australians believe same sex couples should be able to marry. That's 60%.

And it's always useful when thinking about history to consider who's actually written it, and what they've left out and why.

Nothing bad is going to happen to you if gays get married. Bad things might happen in other circumstances, but married gays won't hurt you.

Forgot to mention as well, ALGORE, that for those of us who support gay marriage, it isn't our way or the highway. Nobody in this group is going to MAKE gays marry. But your group MAKES them not marry. Your group says unless you are like us you can't have what we have. Our group says, in a decent society everybody is entitled to the same civil right as everybody else.
So, which group is more interested in love, and which group is more interested in controlling love?

Is that you Boaz?

Still telling everyone else how to live - I remember when you bragged about belting your teenage daughter for staying out late. Yeah, what the kiddies need are more religious control freaks. Not.

When have you ever been threatened by gays or lezzos?

Nice link there Celivia, but you think Boazy is going to read it? You can lead a fundy to water but you can't make him think.

Briar Rose is correct the majority of Australians have no objections to gay marriage - which makes YOU the tail mate. ROFL. A legend in his own mind.

Has anyone ever considered how bloody boring fundy sex must be? Now THAT's unnatural.

Prejudice is an irrational, inflexible attitude
toward an entire category of people, be they
Muslims, Gays, "Boat People," different racial
and ethnic groups, and so on. The word "prejudice"
literally means "prejudged." It usually implies
negative feelings - antipathy, hostility, even fear.

The key feature of prejudice is that it is always
rooted in generalizations and so ignores the
differences among individuals. So, someone who is
prejudiced against Gays will tend to have a
negative attitude toward any individual Gay, in the
belief that all Gays share the same supposed traits.

Despite this gloom, the vast majority of Australians
do not seem to take a hostile view of Gays or any other
group as such. At all levels of Australian society, there
is a remarkable degree of tolerance, if not acceptance,
of people in general as part of our society. Australia's
legal framework also provides for added safeguards. It is
a very small though admittedly a very vocal section of
the Australian community that tends to let its opinions
be known. To them it is self-evident that their own
religion, norms, attitudes, values, and cultural
practices are right and proper, while those of other groups
are inappropriate, peculiar, bizarre, immoral, and even
dangerous.

That should not concern us on the whole. It may be that
the sole purpose in life of these vocal voices - is simply to
serve as a warning to the rest of us on how not to behave.

The difficulty is, of course that under certain conditions,
their attitudes can lead to the oppression of other groups.
And, that should concern us all!

We need a renewed culture of marriage precisely because of the problems of divorce, de facto - 'clayton's marriages' and the threat to destroy marriage posed by advocates of so called Gay 'marriage'.

The last is the most current and most pernicious to marriage because in establishing it you need to destroy what marriage is - between bride and groom/man and woman, etc. and replace it with the entirely novel 'person and person'. Marriage has its own dynamic and meaning and 'person and person' is not it. The etymology of the word itself, as Bishop Elliott of the Melbourne Archdiocese explained to the Senate Committee last year, tells much: "Marriage: from maritus and maritata—husband and wife in Latin. Matrimonio; matrimonium—matrimony; making of a mother. It already has the two sexes written in the whole entomology (sic) of the language"

You put Gay or 'same-sex' in front of that and you render it an absurdity. In fact it fails the basic test of rationality, Aristotle's Principle of Non-Contradiction, in that a thing cannot be both itself and not itself at the same time. Gay or same sex 'marriage' is therefore, in the very meaning of the words utterly irrational and absurd.

Marriage and strong marriages are the bedrock for our future, and that of any nation. They are good for the spouses and provide the ideal public legal, social and emotional support and structure for families, our children and what is best for them. The state/Commonwealth has a vested interest in marriage to raise many and good citizens. Conversely it has no interest in the private relationships of two men or two women.

As a pithy attack on the essential aspect of fertility of the spouses, the critics of marriage say "we let infertile couples marry" and "if fertility is important then we should impose fertility tests on couples before they can marry". Happily this presupposes that conception is possible between male and female, whereas the same cannot be said of two men or two women. The proposed test therefore undermines the argument because of this presupposition.

It seems that there are many irrational people here.

Not surprising because an instructional manual of today contains more than 50% on safety warnings no intelligent person would consider doing e.g. putting a DVD player under running water.

"60% of Australians believe same sex couples should be able to marry. That's 60%."

Scientific facts don't depend on the majority vote. Gay, lesbian marriage is unnatural because it goes againsts the laws of nature.

If the majority of the West thinks this way they will soon be wiped out, as evidence today shows. The birth rate is down and soon the West will self-annihilate.

PT

>> Scientific facts don't depend on the majority vote. Gay, lesbian marriage is unnatural because it goes againsts the laws of nature. <<

No mate, scientific evidence shows that homosexuality is common throughout nature.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior

I have used Wiki for convenience, however established proven research is available from any university, science organisation, government records and so on.

The human race is unlikely to become 100% gay - the rate is about and remains 10%.

WE ARE NOT DOOMED BY GAY MARRIAGE. Twerp!

Lemas

Marriage is not all about reproduction. Many straights marry and don't have children - BY CHOICE. Deputy Liberal Leader Julie Bishop, was married 5 years, does not have children and now lives with her partner.

If legally acknowledged relationships are in fact the "bedrock" for the future of a nation, then it makes more sense for gays to marry than not.

Personally I don't give a toss who marries who, but while people remain discriminated against for their sexual orientation it remains another legally sanctioned act of bigotry.

This is from the same happy bunch that claimed that it was self evident that the sun revolved around the earth, and that men could not have a common ancestor to the ape.

This is one of the most facile justifications for bigotry I have ever seen.

At least it is some consolation that they have stopped burning people at the stake for heresy.

"This is from the same happy bunch that claimed that it was self evident that the sun revolved around the earth, and that men could not have a common ancestor to the ape."
Exactly Shadow Minister, and this happy clappy bunch that yelled out similar nonsense about interracial marriage in the past.

"Columnist and blogger Andrew Sullivan recently speculated that there may be a correlation between states which were slow to legalize miscegenation and states which were quick to ban same-sex marriage. The assumption is that states that banned interracial marriage are fundamentally more intolerant of minorities, and thus the most likely to pursue a legislative agenda that denies legal rights to homosexuals."
http://www.filibustercartoons.com/marriage.htm

And it's the same sickening bunch who justified slavery because Jesus supported it.

Philip Tang thinks that if same-sex marriage is allowed, we will be wiped out. As if marriage causes people to become homosexual! Me thinks homosexuality comes first... then marriage, not vice versa.

All those children in orphanages would really benefit from adoption by childless couples, like same-sex couples. With a huge population that won't be able to sustain itself if it keeps growing at this rate, we would do good by allowing same-sex couples to marry and adopt children.

Get a life, control freaks! Live and let live! If you don't like same-sex marriage, you DON'T HAVE TO get married to somebody of the same sex as yourself.

John Hartung told us that:

"The Bible is a blueprint of in-group
morality, complete with instructions for
genocide, enslavement of out-groups,
and world domination. But the Bible is
not evil by virtue of its objectives or
even its glorification of murder, cruelty,
and rape. Many ancient works do that -
The Iliad, the Icelandic Sagas, the tales
of the ancient Syrians and the inscriptions of
the ancient Mayans, for example. But no one is
selling the Iliad as a foundation for morality.
Therein lies the problem. The Bible is sold,
and bought, as a guide to how people should
live their lives. And it is, by far, the
world's all-time best seller."

I prefer what Richard Dawkins has to say in his
book, "The God Delusion,":

"Enjoy your own sex life (so long as it damages
nobody else) and leave others to enjoy theirs in
private whatever their inclinations, which are
none of your business."

Foxy, "Enjoy your own sex life (so long as it damages nobody else) and leave others to enjoy theirs in private whatever their inclinations, which are none of your business."

Dawkins is right, the State is wrong to look over the shoulders of citizens, effectively ruling that all relationships are de facto unless a person can provide reasons satisfactory to the State to prove s/he is not. The State's 'criteria' are numerous and vague and even its own bureaucrats apply differing interpretations, linked more, one suspects, to what entitlements might be at stake. Then there are the apparent inconsistencies in rulings, for instance on multicultural grounds where a man can have more than one wife and claim several benefits.

It is not so very long ago that people could choose what contracts they entered in to in life. Regarding relationships, singledom was the default unless the citizen chose to change that situation and with the informed agreement of another. Now the State has reserved the right to decide and legal assistance is required to find out if one is in fact unintentionally at risk of being declared to be in a de facto relationship.

Yes, it is easy to see why Dawkins might be concerned about freedom and privacy and there should be a moratorium on further change until the mess is sorted out, this time through proper consultation with the electorate.

there is a big difference between enjoying one's won sex life and being silent about the promoting or modeling adultery. fornication, homosexuality which leads to misery for many children. If people would enjoy their own sex life, keep it to themselves and don't keep trying to get the general public to endorse their out of control lusts we would not be having this discussion. Unfortunately there are to many who need the 'endorsement' and promotion of their perversion. Generally they are very intolerant of the views of those who have the children's best interest at heart.

Dear Cornflower,

As always, your rational comments
are greatly appreciated.

I'm with you Celivia "Get a life, control freaks! Live and let live! If you don't like same-sex marriage, you DON'T HAVE TO get married to somebody of the same sex as yourself."

I was put to the test and taken aback by my own reactions when my 15 year old daughter told me about a new girl who'd started at school. This girl was daring. She had slept with girls. Next thing a couple of the boys started talking about being bisexual. It was spreading. One of the mothers rang me and was very worried about the insidious influence of this new girl. One by one the girls were tempted to experiment with this exciting new girl. My daughter casually told me about a couple of her friends doing this. I was immediately panicked that she would want to do it too. When I asked her about what was happening and she could obviously detect some concern she asked me, why? what's the problem? doesn't everybody try it? It's normal isn't it? You've tried it haven't you? There I was caught out and I was surprised that I could be guilty, yes me, guilty of being homophobic. It makes me shudder to even think of it now, that it was me being like that. I think we can learn a lot from young people about this control freak old fart attitude. What's to be afraid of. It's all fear driven anyway isn't it? Same sex marriage, so what's to be afraid of? ourselves perhaps?

dotto,

How very broad-minded (sic) of you. However did you ever stop to consider those not-so-small considerations of responsible parents such as age of consent, informed consent and so on?

Matter of fact, I wonder if you are a parent at all or are just indulging your own fantasy of under-age sex. What is it with that "This girl is daring" stuff and the detail? It is significant that you did not approach the school.

Your advice to your young teen - if indeed there is any truth in your story - was truly abominable. She is like other children her age trying to work out her sexuality and find trustworthy friends who will not take advantage of her and you have let her down through your very poor advice and refusal to set limits.

Just as a tip, responsible parents and teachers and that is the overwhelming majority of them, are forever on the look-out for school age sexual 'adventurousness' and risk-taking, which are so often red flags for something in the child's life that is dreadfully awry, including sexual molestation in the home.

I agree Cornflower. Dotto, what has underage sex got to do with the subject of 'natural' or gay marriage?
One would hope you counselled your daughter about both the potential harm and illegality and of any sort of sex at 15?

With all the ranting and raving of many posters on the subject of marriage, I still don't see how defacto or gay marriage hurts anyone any more or any less than the so-called 'natural' marriage?

Runner, I personally know of many, many children who have been 'hurt' by 'natural' parents in a 'natural' marriage- haven't you?

Yes, and even when the child is 'of age' that doesn't mean she should be placed on the block for every skank, female and male, to take advantage of. This girl needs to find caring friends and a caring group, fast. Boys are no different.

What about the extended family, any mature young women there to take her under their wing? Any adult men in the family who can be trusted to model the strong, caring, masculine role, so that she can be herself with all of the uncertainties and flaws of youth but still be safe?

She certainly needs to be part of other groups outside of the school for her own safety and for support.

There needs to be regular, ongoing contact with the school and the best way to be there and be invisible is to volunteer. However in this case it is urgent that there be some calm talk and bridges built with the teachers and deputy head so that a unified plan can be devised to handle this problem.

Likewise, boys should get the same support, but rarely do. Yet they would suffer less stress and be far better citizens if the more mature women in their extended family cared enough to give them frank, non-judgemental advice and support.

At the end of the day their sexual orientation is not the concern, however their happiness and resilience are and these cannot be developed where the children/youths are continually at risk at home, at school, or in a skanky circle of 'friends'. No advice, no firm boundaries puts them at risk. It does not help them to be set adrift to become victims.

I knew I shouldn't have put that last post up after I sent it. You missed my point which I should have anticipated. My point was that all the judgement about same-sex marriage stems from homophobia. Thankfully, our culture seems to be changing in that young people don't seem to view same-sex relationships with the level of fear that previous generations have had in the past and continue to have. Many young people these days seem to be much more accepting of diversity, including sexual diversity. This was my point. A renewed culture of natural marriage is just reinforcing that homophobia has a very loud voice in our society. As I said, we could learn a lot from young people and that they are far less inclined to judge and much more open to accept.

10 reasons why gay marriage should remain illegal (which I'm sure many of you have seen before; I just thought you could dowm with a refresher course):

* Being gay is not natural. Real Australians always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.
* Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.
* Legalising gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.
* Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.
* Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britany Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.
* Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.
* Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.
* Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in Australia.
* Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.
* Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.

Great ritz
Here are a few more reasons that oppose gay marriage:

The act of homosexuality is abhorrent to the normal heterosexual majority in society.

Gay marriage is an anathema to conventional logic and opposes long standing, historic and proven traditions of past and present civilizations.

Homosexuality represents un-natural, debased and deviant behaviour, thus should be discouraged by laws against the act, not promoted by laws for the act.

Homosexual political activism should be likewise opposed by right thinking moral activists using any means available which succeed in restoring a moral order to our society.

dotto: "all the judgement about same-sex marriage stems from homophobia"

It has nothing to do with fear or things of that sort.

Same-sex relationship is deviant behavior. Like suicide, it is a matter of choice. There is virtually no evidence of a 'gay' or 'lesbian' gene.

From a Darwinian view point (Darwin wrote "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.") same-sex relationship contradicts scientific theory.

One of the contributing factors to falling birth-rate of White Europeans is the way same-sex relationship have been vigorously and militantly promoted by the irrational.

"A civilization that is producing a tiny succeeding generation and shows no signs of attempting to remedy the problem is violating fundamental Darwinist principles of gene propagation."

http://www.yaledailynews.com/opinion/guest-columns/2008/02/27/white-europeans-an-endangered-species/

[Deleted for profanity].

Actually, there is a great deal of evidence for the heritability of homosexuality. But I'm sure peer-reviewed journal articles won't shift you from your entrenched position of bigotry.

Your assertion that same-sex relationships run counter to Darwinian evolution shows how poor your understanding of basic biology is. If the gene(s) which produce homosexuality provide a selective advantage sufficiently large to counteract the selective disadvantage of removing some carriers from the reproductive pool, then that gene has a good chance of being propagated, possibly even selected for.

what, amongst other matters, is strange about this article is that way back in the 19th century (when the australian constitution was being formulated) 'marriage' included common law marriage (otherwise known as de facto marriage - that is, woman and man living together as if formally married) along with same-sex/gender relationships (that is, man and man, or woman and woman living together as if formally married). and, no doubt, persons who are now labelled, often, in questionaires, etc as 'other' (rather than 'male' or 'female') lived together in various permutations.

the mystery is that courts should define 'marriage' under the australian constitution as constituted by a woman and man (or, as they are more inclined to term it, 'man and woman') who have formally married. this is a new version of marriage, rather than an old one, and one that began with the aristocracy (because of their wish to consolidate property ownership). the common herd eventually succumbed to church and registry office - but as noted many didn't.

The major difference is that formerly common law 'marriage' could only be said to exist where both parties, a man and a woman, agreed to it of their own free will (informed consent), whereas in Australia de facto relationship status can be deemed to exist against the intent, agreement or consent of the parties affected. The State peers into bedrooms and decides. So much for choice and freedom.

Unabashed by the complex mess they have wrought with changes to de facto law and compounded by the extension of those arrangements to gays whether they wanted it or not (suck it up), the same meddlesome middle class elite is proposing to thunder ahead to 'fix' the Marriage Act. Incredible!

Riz,
I really loved your "10 reasons..." post!
And diver dan's reasons for opposing same-sex marriage are pretty hilarious, too.

"Actually, there is a great deal of evidence for the heritability of homosexuality."
This is only one example of the kind of articles that bigots like diver dan and philip need to read:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=having-older-brothers-inc

Philip,
There is enough evidence to show that one's sexual orientation is not a choice.

There is no logic in opposing same-sex marriage for the reason that these couples will not produce children.
They are not producing children when they are not married either, so nothing changes in that respect.
It makes no difference to the size of our population whether same-sex couples are married or not.
Same-sex marriage should, however, enable these couples to adopt children; children who otherwise would have to spend their childhood in orphanages.

Agree with CF in his/her reply to Dotto.
When I was in HS, there were also a couple of lesbians- students as well as a teacher. It was hardly an issue. They certainly didn't cause orgies or sexual experiments with other students.

To go back a step - wasn't marriage something created by the church? Wasn't it something designed to make it a rule that a man and a woman could have sex together under their own roof? So it was a rule made up by the church, yes? And it's still a rule because the longer it's been a rule the more values have been attached to it. Darwin it seems has also been attached to it. If you're a man and a woman and you get married and you want to have sex together in your own home, or on holiday, then you can. Cool, sounds like a good reason to get married. But not everyone gets to do this, because if you don't fit Darwin's theory because you happen to be in that queer 10% then too bad you can't get a certificate that says you can have sex together in OUR society. You can still have sex, but you can't get that certificate of acceptance to say that you're a legitimate member of the marriage society. So what about that 10% thing? What if it's sometimes 50-50? There are some people who are bi-sexual. What if some are 20-80, or 30-70, or 5-95. What if only 10% are a 100? And if this were true, then 90% of people would be shades of gay anyway, from light gay to dark gay. And by the way, I think Darwin was probably more interested in sex purely for reproductive purposes because he wanted to record the offspring from this process. I don't think he recorded if for example, a female monkey had a relationship with another female monkey and they adopted a baby monkey whose 'natural' mother had rejected it at birth. The baby monkey thrived and they were a family together. There are all kinds of families. They teach this stuff on Sesame Street kids!

Riz

Loving your top ten, mate - best list I've seen for a while.

Cornflower, Dotto - one day these nut-jobs like PT and Diver Dan will actually read your common sense words, just like PT bothered to read the links to VERIFIABLE science studies others (like yours truly) have posted. Instead of racist gibberish like "white europeans are endangered", Phillip Tang- member of the KKK are ya?

And no day would be complete without the lovely Celivia - missed you darling, wonderful to know you have been keeping on with lines like these:

"They (gays) are not producing children when they are not married either, so nothing changes in that respect."

LOL

Phillip Tang

Your reference to an article from the Yale Daily News pointing out some obvious demographic pressures from immigration affecting Europe at the moment is interesting.
Obviously you have drawn your own conclusion to the correlation between low birth rates and gay marriage from the article. What the author concluded was low birth rate in Europe were due more to advances in education and the mobility of the affluent native population and the preponderance of them to guard their financial gains and life style with the same low birth rates.
This article would more suit research on xenophobia and effects of immigration on a local population, I would think. However, having said all this, the whole context of the article could be extended to include increasing pressure from acceptance of gay marriage to be another contributing factor to low birth rates. If there is any need in the debate outside of the moral argument on gay marriage, then this could be added as a contribution to the opposing argument to legalising of gay marriage

Continued to Phillip Tang

This article would more suit research on xenophobia and effects of immigration on a local population, I would think. However, having said all this, the whole context of the article could be extended to include increasing pressure from acceptance of gay marriage to be another contributing factor to low birth rates. If there is any need in the debate outside of the moral argument on gay marriage, then this could be added as a contribution to the opposing argument to legalising of gay marriage.
It is difficult though to argue here on any technical level with the obvious “fairy set” and their spurious arguments aimed at pulling down the pillars of social moral fortitude which, by its traditions, advances society in the direction of sustainability and acceptability, opposing the implantation of social acceptance of the unnatural and undesirable act of homosexuality and its socially negative consequences

Dan,
That's Riz, without the 't'. Crikey Dan, I wouldn't misspell your name - don't forget the Golden Rule.

* As one of the normal heterosexual majority in society, I don't find the act of homosexuality any more abhorrent than fat, elderly heterosexuals having sex. It's not my cup of tea, but so long as they keep it in their own houses with curtains drawn, what I don't know can't hurt me.

* Conventional logic has no more to say on the topic of gay marriage than mathematics. Who taught you philosophy? History doesn't support your bigotry either. Do some research; the ancient Greeks were gagging for hot man [censored]. They also kept slaves, along with a lot of other past and present civilisations - tradition is no defence for irrationality or immorality.

* No, sorry, homosexuality does occur in nature (not just among mankind; rams are also gagging for hot ram [censored], and they aren't the only animals), and is thus necessarily not unnatural. Whether it is debased or deviant depends on your own moral code. By my own moral code, your bigotry is debased and deviant. But I also stand by the wisdom of Voltaire; whilst I may abhor what you have to say, I shall defend to the death your right to say it.

* Where I come from, we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. Any activism which strives for equality, Liberty and Happiness for homosexuals gets a big thumbs up from me.

"Same-Sex Marriage Debate Has Roots Going Back Centuries"
http://tinyurl.com/38kbo8g

And my pick of the day from this article is this quote:
"It was actually Christianity that first took the position that the validity of marriage did not depend on the ability to reproduce."

Dan,
why are you so afraid of social change?
Societies, at least Western societies, have always been naturally dynamic; if that was not true, we would still be stuck in the dark ages.

When you say, >>...unnatural and undesirable act of homosexuality and its socially negative consequences...<<
Let me know when you come up with evidence to back up this claim. Look at any of the 12 or so countries where same-sex marriage has been legal, starting from 2001 in the Netherlands, till the most recent one this month in Argentina, tell us where exactly those socially negative consequences are happening, just because a minority of same-sex coulples are married?

Hi JR, glad you are back from Germany for a while!

Riz:
I’ll try to be kind with the demolition of your platitudinous argument. Let us start with the trailing remark; “All men are created equal”; well, some are more equal than others obviously, and under the rule of nature which says “The fittest shall survive” then it is to war we go, whatever the cause.
And so Riz, you sit on the fence of sexual normality and then like humpty dumpty, fall into the circle of the kings men and their horses. It is difficult to reconstruct an argument around unrelated facts as you presented here; and like humpty dumpty, the facts relating to you argument will leave you in shards at the bottom of the wall.
Sorry, but conventional logic has everything to say about gay marriage. Gay marriage is simply unconventional.

Riz, nowhere do I ever argue against the existence of homosexuality. Such people are to be pitied. That hackneyed word “bigot” was very appropriately used by the French to describe the Normans, but it now rests in the “long-yard” of overused expressions very ineffectively proffered by the homosexual lobby describing the approaching war party.
Finally, as for the Romans as an example of anything original, your argument is reduced to a yellow watery substance by appealing to their history of (possible) acceptance of homosexuality as a reason for the acceptance of Gay marriage in our own community. Maybe its you that should re-visit the study of philosophy; and may I suggest you extend the study into sociology as well. Try “Spencer”.

Celivia and Cornflower. Yes, I probably agree with Cornflower's response to me too. As a parent (and yes I really am) I was concerned about a.) the presence of my child entering into risky behaviour, b.) peer pressure to make this kind of choice, c.) not being aware of the emotional consequences of moving into adult behaviours. In my post I didn't go into the detail of the conversation I had with my daughter at that time because it wasn't the point I was attempting to make. But I can understand that the snippet I gave which was quite a bit out of full context did make it all sound like irresponsible parenting. I was disappointed about my own reaction to my fear that my child may have some kind of sexual encounter with a person of the same sex. I was disappointed with my immediate homophobic reaction to this. I was enlightened by how openly she expressed to me that none of the kids in her group seemed to think that there was necessarily anything unnatural about it. Yes, this episode was somewhat out of control and yes, parents did step in, as did the staff of the school because I spoke with them about it. But I was disappointed about my homophobic reaction to it which was based upon fear. And that really was my point. And my daughter ... she made the choice not to participate in an activity that was causing a good deal of anxiety amongst the kids and which she could see for herself that this was the case, and which she and I talked about. I am very fortunate that she feels comfortable enough to talk with me about issues like this. She's wonderful.

Riz I loved your top ten and I laughed as Dan fell for the bait.
Johnny Rotten, thank you - you're the best!

Dan,

*"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."
- George Orwell

Let me guess, Dan - your favourite animals are pigs?

By what metric are we to determine which people are more equal than others?

* When you're quite done mixing metaphors and torturing defenceless analogies who have done you no harm, do you think you could try your hand at crafting an argument in the Queen's English which is understandable to the non-clinically insane? Ta. Waffling on about Humpty Dumpty is an excellent way to distract some folk's attention from the fact that your argumentative skills are shite, but it can't hold a candle to employing a decent argument in the first place.

* "Logic! Why don't they teach logic in these schools?" - C.S.Lewis
Gay marriage may be unconventional, but that doesn't make it a question of logic. Logic is a philosophical tool which can be used to assess the various arguments for/against homosexual knowledge. It is not a system of knowledge which can establish the validity of homosexuality; it can only comment on the validity of arguments about homosexuality.

* I never implied that you argued against the existence of homosexuality. I was demonstrating that any argument against homosexuality which employs 'homosexuality is unnatural' as either premise or conclusion is necessarily unsound, because the statement 'homosexuality is unnatural' is demonstrably false. Homosexuality does occur in nature and is thus, by definition, not unnatural.

* Go back and read my post properly... my point about the Greeks was not that we should accept homosexuality because the Greeks did. I was making precisely the opposite point: that doing anything on a historical or traditional basis, as opposed to a rational and empirical basis, is sheer folly. I brought up the point as a rebuttal to your ludicrous suggestion that simply because homophobia had some historical support, it logically follows that homophobia is a good thing. So what's it to be, Dan? Reject historical/traditional arguments 'coz the Greeks accepted homosexuality, or accept them 'coz the British Empire didn't? You can't have it both ways.

>""The act of homosexuality is abhorrent to the normal heterosexual majority in society.

"Homosexuality represents un-natural, debased and deviant behaviour, thus should be discouraged by laws against the act, not promoted by laws for the act.""<
Posted by diver dan, Tuesday, 17 August 2010 8:50:38 PM

Most people realise homosexuality is inherent in those that feel and express it. The physical acts of expression homosexuality are common in heterosexual relationships.
..........................................................
>>""Actually, there is a great deal of evidence for the heritability of homosexuality. But I'm sure peer-reviewed journal articles won't shift you from your entrenched position of bigotry.""<<
Posted by Riz, Wednesday, 18 August 2010 12:41:08 AM

This is a lie - there are No peer-reviewed journal articles to support it.

There are likely to be events in priming for and acquisition of characteristics of sexual behaviour that contribute, but these may be varied, and have not been shown anywhere to be inherited.

Dotto,
I see the point you were trying to make, thanks. I'm not going to go on more about it because it would distract from the original topic too much, but I accept that there is much more to the story and that your daughter is wonderful.

Dan,
Riz is correct- that something is unconventional doesn't mean that it is by definition, wrong. In countries where same-sex marriage is legal, it is not unconventional anymore.
If you give it some thought you may realise that, with the moving zeitgeist, many things that were once unconventional are now completely accepted and common practice.

McReal,
There are good reasons to believe that homosexuality has biological roots. And, although there is no convincing evidence, there is enough evidence to say that it can be partly inherited.
Biological causes of homosexuality may have had evolutionary benefits.

Did you read a previous article I linked to? Here it is again:

http://tinyurl.com/2vggfyy

"Having Older Brothers Increases a Man's Odds of Being Gay.
The idea that prenatal mechanisms may influence sexual orientation has been around for a couple of decades. In 1996, Bogaert along with colleague Ray Blanchard correlated sexual orientation in men with the number of older brothers, but it wasn't clear if that influence was occurring because the boys shared the same household or because they had shared the same womb...

"The fact that the common denominator between the older and younger biological brothers is the mother hints at a prenatal influence on sexual orientation."

The debate over the causes of homosexuality is still divided, and more research needs to be done.

It should make no difference what the exact cause(s) of homosexuality turns out to be- the point is that heterosexuals and homosexuals should have equal rights in a civilised country like Australia.

There is no need or logical justification for discrimination because something happens to still be unconventional.

@ Celivia (Thursday, 19 August 2010 10:42:03 AM)

I agree that homosexuality is likely to have biological roots, as I indicated - "There are likely to be events in priming for and acquisition of characteristics of sexual behaviour that contribute"

and by "priming for and acquisition of", I meant the same as stated in that Scientific American article (although I had not seen it) -

"The idea that prenatal mechanisms may influence sexual orientation has been around for a couple of decades."

One theory has been about testosterone receptors in the brain. These are primed as are other secondary sex characteristics by a surge in testosterone produced by the foetus's testicles at 5 months gestation
.

I agree - ""It should make no difference what the exact cause(s) of homosexuality turns out to be- the point is that heterosexuals and homosexuals should have equal rights in a civilised country like Australia.""

There is no need or logical justification for discrimination because something ... is a human biological variation

Riz

I am running out of energy and interest for this subject; maybe someother day.But would like to add:

I consider myself a little more self respecting than to be buried in debate on a subject needing no debate. I leave you in the safe hands of OLO who will shield you from the simple realities of life, by its lack of balance in articles on this subject.
I wish my family of daughters well with their similar outlook and who live normal lives in our community and are likewise self respecting normal women married in the conventional way to normal blokes and with normal kids. Thank God

And if the older brothers theory turned out to be correct - (according to the article link provided by Celivia for those who have read it) - if the woman's immune system produces antibodies to male-specific proteins after she has carried a male fetus - which in turn may result in the delivery of antibodies to the subequent male fetus she may carry in her womb, "possibly (influencing) affecting its development" - then why in nature might this occur? Hypothetically, this may be an intended biologically pre-determined natural process. According to this research there is a pattern. A 'natural' biological population control switch, perhaps? So, if a mother had 6 sons, the first 5 heterosexual, the youngest one gay - and the reason for this biological diversity was due to the above theorised process - then he may have been naturally selected to play a role (if he chooses to) in population control. Brilliant! As it has already been pointed out -

"They (gays) are not producing children when they are not married either, so nothing changes in that respect."

and

"It was actually Christianity that first took the position that the validity of marriage did not depend on the ability to reproduce."

I agree with Celivia and McReal - ""It should make no difference what the exact cause(s) of homosexuality turns out to be- the point is that heterosexuals and homosexuals should have equal rights in a civilised country like Australia.""

"There is no need or logical justification for discrimination because something ... is a human biological variation"

Thank you Dotto; it is a very interesting topic to discuss what the evolutionary benefits are if the "older brothers" theory is correct!

"...he (the youngest brother) may have been naturally selected to play a role (if he chooses to) in population control. Brilliant!"

Brilliant indeed!
Not only that, but there might have been a survival advantage within families, if there were any surplus childless family members, who could help take care of the family's children, taking into account that there were high levels of maternal death due to complications in childbirth and male deaths due to outside dangers were common as well.
Having a few lesbians and gays handy to help out raise the children would definitely be beneficial to the survival of a group/tribe.

McReal,
Ok we are talking about the same thing here then. I wasn't sure what you meant by "events". Fully understand what you meant now, thanks.

Dan... Nothing new that you want to stop discussing this topic; you will no doubt be back on another thread about homosexuality or same-sex marriage with the exact same objections you have made now, as if you have not learned anything new about the topic. Me thinks you are leaving the discussion because you are confronted with logical arguments, and have no valid rebuttals left.

I'm really glad that all your family is heterosexual because they would have an incredibly hard time to cope with it, knowing how their closed ones, like yourself, will judge them negatively.
This is a reason why many, many homosexual people do not dare come out early in life but rather after they married to please their family, only to discover that their true longings are with the same sex.
And this is very sad indeed, especially when children are involved.

Dan,

Finally, you make a good point. Equal rights for all people is something that shouldn't require any debate at all.

Just 'coz every article on this topic does not agree with your views on the subject, it does not follow that they lack balance. I would suggest that 'tis yourself, rather than the articles, who is unbalanced.

And just 'coz I can out-argue you, that's no reason to take your bat and go home. That's just a bit sad and childish. But I can't stop you from throwing your little man-tanty, so:

Riz 1; Idiots 0

Thank Flying Spaghetti Monster

Yes, and thank you for the article link Celivia, "it is a very interesting topic to discuss the evolutionary benefits if the "older brother" theory is correct." It's also very interesting to consider the evolutionary benefits of the "older brother" theory to group and tribe as this may relate to 'balance' (are you listening Diver Dan?) and how biological diversity is necessary for group or tribe balance. Imagine being part of a tribe where all the men were 100% heterosexual and very testosterony, just as one example. There would be some survival advantages for the tribe, but could also be quite stressful (excessive stress not good for health) simply due to the over-abundant presence of the behaviouaral effects of high testosterone levels. Stress between the males, stress for the females, stress all around for the children. A black and white world may sound much neater and safer Diver Dan, but life simply is not 100% of anything all the time, and for a very good reason - 'balance'. Now pick up your bat, wipe that spaghetti off your shirt (Riz is a very good shot!) - it's okay you haven't lost, you still have a chance to take yourself outside of yourself and consider that those who judge others against themselves, can't see very far. And what's OLO? Is it an inside out LOL?