Bach, way to misunderstand or worse misrepresent my argument. The myriad of gay animals in nature prove its natural (see the work of Joan Roughgarden and others on animal sexuality). Homosexuality is legitimate because its not intrinsicly Unethical and thus within peoples basic human rights (see the yogyakarta principles).

gpenglase
All your points are wrong as I will now show.

Gay sex happens in nature regularly. Therefore it is natural. You cannot argue otherwise without redefining nature itself as unnatural! If you want to learn the value of Gay Sex amongst animals i suggest learning about the Bonobo and other animals with lots of gay sex, as for it's human value try learning about that too. Ask youself why did God make Gay animals? Why does God make Eunuchs who Jesus said are 'Born That Way'? (It's in Mathew).

1. It doesn't matter that Gays can't make babies with other gays, they still often have kids with women, they still raise kids every day, they can still look after abandoned and orphaned kids. Why did God Make Gay Animals which Adopt orphaned babies unless thats what God made Gays for? And not every religion in Australia, not every christian church even, is anti-gay! So thats strike one for you.

2. Where are the Comparative Studies that compare Gay Parents to Hetero Ones? Oh wait, i'm the one that gave those links and they say Gays are Equal to Hetero's as quality Parents! Strike 2 for you.

3. Gay parents already foster kids no hetero ones want! But you are denying those kids the right to the advantages of being adopted by the couple that look after them! Your claim ignores this and so your argument is invalid! Strike 3!

So in the interests of children (BEST for the child, not ANTI-gay activism) we should be
(a) placing adoptable children with loving caring parents of any sexuality which is, hands down, the BEST for the child.
(b) acknowledging the RIGHT of every child to have loving caring parents by ensuring children fostered by gay couples can be adopted by them

CJ Morgan:>>David G and sonofgloin, my point is that there is nothing "natural" about human family structures, as you claimed. It seems to me that those who are so upset about gay people having kids are really conscripting kids to what is essentially a homophobic cause.<<

CJ, these statements do not apply to me or the comments I posted. I commented on the stigma that the children do and will encounter from their peers, that is my objection, nothing more.

BACH;

If you read my satirical post three or four above your own, it effectively trashes the argument the homosexual lobby are using strongly here; that one which implies "if dogs do it,(at the moment its penguins), then homosexuals should have legal rights to those same activities".
The other argument centres on the behaviour of others, usually in foreign countries in Europe, which apparently by its nature legitimises any behaviour condoned globally as automatically acceptable in Australian society.

There are very tidy social arguments, as the author of this article points out admirably, why children should be protected from forced integration with homosexuality, as would happen if the homosexual lobby group have their way with proposed changes to adoption laws.

The real weak point in arguments against the relentless march of homosexuality, as it seeks to level every hill and mountain in its way to achieve social acceptance of the practices and beliefs of the group, is the subjective nature of those counter arguments.

The moral argument most often based on religious beliefs, is subjective. Also, opinion based on norms in society is also subjective. The tactic used by the homosexual lobby is to constantly attack these subjective beliefs as unfair to their minority view, and to have credibility of religious and social belief cast in the unfair light of bigotry, (which the moral argument is not I might add).

As experience shows, using the example of previous campaigns by another morally sick group the “legal prostitution lobby”, hammering the traditional subjective beliefs of society and subjecting them to objective arguments such as evidenced here in these posts, proves the most effective road to success of spreading this particular sickness of homosexuality.

The problem with social objections to homosexuality are generally moral based: Where the slimness of the objective argument of the moralists is built on physical and mental health issues almost entirely.

The legalisation of gay adoption is simple to recognise in law what presently exists. Family court will always rule in the best interests of the child. As the gay partner of a single parent is not recognised by the law the lack of legal recognition does not alter the outcome, but seriously extends the time and cost of resolving the issue.

There is a well defined justification to recognise existing relationships and to reduce the expenses to the commonwealth and taxpayer.

For those bigots that see this as a legitimisation of homosexuality, wake up and smell the roses, it exists, has done so at least for all recorded history.

This legislation does not grant same sex couples parity or advantage in adopting children where the agencies must still consider the environment of the home and society before allowing adoption.

sonofgloin, you said

<< We are in the nuke family era mum, dad, two kids, the concept is alien to our society regardless of historic societal morays, don't you think. >>

Which is why I pointed out that there's nothing 'natural' about the nuclear family - it's the most common type in our society at this particular point in history, but that is changing. While I have no doubt about your sincerity regarding adopted kids' welfare and protecting them from schoolyard taunts, that is no reason to stop gay parents adopting kids.

Reinforcing discriminatory structures is no way to deal with them. Following your logic, we wouldn't have Indigenous or migrant children in our schools, not to mention disabled kids. Think about it.

Diver Dan, your spurious satire is a Classic Logical Fallacy. A form manipulation to try and win an argument through deception.

For the penguins just prove the Natural Vs Unnatural argument, not the basis for the validity of same-sex adoption but disproves the false claim of 'unnatural' used to falsely invalidate it!

Then you say all the examples are European. Ignoring that i mentioned Samoa, our Neighbour and lets add Tonga and just about all of Indiginous Polynesia! Our region! And the Tiwi Islands which are Part Of Australia! And then the rest of Australias Indiginous Same Sex and Transgender traditions.. traditions which in our apology for our past policy of cultural genocide we have said sorry for trying to destroy!

Your claiming moral relativism ignores centuries of understanding following the Enlightenment which gave us the principles of universal human rights based on liberty and personal choice that stop only at the equality of other peoples equal rights. Gay people are just wanting their equal rights. A Fair Go for all Australians. These principles are all to be found in the bible (and other faiths texts too) Do Unto Others as you would have them Do Unto You. ie equal rights. Vex not a stranger nor oppress him for you were strangers in the land of Egypt. In other words don't apply your rules to people who are different to you as you wouldn't like them making you live their way! And it's said repeatedly.

Gay couples already raise foster kids Diver Dan! Why would you hurt those kids by denying them the advantages of being adopted by the people caring for them?

Oh and minority view? Polls show the majority of Australians support antidiscrimination legislation for Gays and Transgender people. Galaxy Poll: 85% total in favour 40% strongly in favour, only 4% strongly against! Same-Sex Marriage polled at 60% support! The Majority of Australia is pro-gay! In fact applying the polls on religious beliefs to those figures we learn that the majority of christians are pro-gay and the majority of pro-gay people are christians!