> > Another irrelevant argument is that children from same-sex
> > households score equally well in outcomes such as maths,
> > sport, and social skills. Even granting that highly dubious
> > claim, such research would say precisely nothing about the
> > primal harm we have done to the inner life of a developing
> > child by depriving him of a mother.

Well this puts it pretty bluntly: 'my prejudices trump your science.' The point of all the social research on children headed by same-sex couples is that there is no "primal harm". When people cling to this view they are letting their preconceptions rule. When doctors of medicine promote prejudice over research, it's terrifying.

The marriage-is-all-about-children argument conveniently ignores one fact. When a couple marries, in some form or other they pledge to each other permanence, mutual support and love: "Do you promise to love, honour and obey?" "I do." Not "Do you promise to love, honour, obey and bear children?"

The people re-defining marriage are the anti-SSM crowd, and they're doing it for their own rhetorical purposes. Marriage is a covenant between two individuals, before their families and society, possibly (though with decreasing frequency) in the sight of their god. It's not a covenant involving children, born or unborn. Saying that "marriage is fundamentally about the needs of children" is redefining marriage. Making marriage available to same-sex couples is not.

I don't think that argument will stack up. What about all the kids that are deprived of their mother or father in so called :partners" Every thing is honky dorry until one or the other has had enough.
Gay marriage could end up more lawful than shackin up.
The land is full of bastard kids.
Have a good think about it.

David,

It is the solid logical type of arguments you put forward, without personal abuse or invective, that will ultimately defeat this push by the homosexual lobby. A lobby which so far seems only able put together abuse, invective and rabble like slogans in support of it's 'cause'.

The vast majority listen to and understand reason rather than illogical sloganeering and rants.

Well done.

I like Davids mesage about socalled Gay marraige but what about Lesbins and kids?? Theres some in my block and their BOTH great Mum's. Maybe ban marraige for Male Sodomites but not for Lesbins??

ALL kids need a mum (or 2)

Wouff

Marriage is a covenant between a husband and wife as defined by tradition and indeed by article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Now unless homosexual couples can state who is the husband and who is the wife I don't think they fit any definition here.

You're mistaken, the attempt to change marriage, is being undertaken by the homosexual lobby

David's arguments really are honored more in the breach that the rule.
I do agree that just because things may happen anyway it's not a reason to legitimise them.

If concern that children have real involvement with parents of both genders is really the point then there are much bigger issues around than the small number of of children who may end up being raised by married same sex couples.

Rather than deny marriage to same sex couples the question could be how to maximise the chances for children have access to constructive adult role models of both genders regardless of the circumstances or personal qualities of their parents?

R0bert

Great points – and it is about time we looked at marriage from the child’s perspective. Adults-only libertarians need to stop thinking about their “rights” 24/7.

David seems to be locked into the 'Pleasantville' mindset, when men were men - hard-working, upright disciplinarians - and women stayed at home and raised the children.

His whole argument is predicated on the idea that one's gender dictates the entirety of one's role as a parent.

Frank Brennan, who was head of the Human Rights Consultative Committee looking into a Bill of Rights, has an article today which essentially supports the child-centred argument against gay marriage, while affirming civil equality for co-dependent couples. See http://www.eurekastreet.com.au/article.aspx?aeid=24259

Excerpt: "In considering whether to advocate a change to the definition of marriage, citizens need to consider not only the right of same sex couples to equality but even more so the rights of future children.

The State has an interest in privileging group units in society which are likely to enhance the prospects that future children will continue to be born with a known biological father and a known biological mother who in the best of circumstances will be able to nurture and educate them.

That is why there is a relevant distinction to draw between a commitment between a same sex couple to establish a group unit in society and a commitment of a man and a woman to marry and found a family."

David "a commitment of a man and a woman to marry and found a family"

Is a commitment to found a family part of the existing marriage act?

R0bert

Glad you mentioned Brennan, David, because it’s striking how weakly he puts his argument.

First, his view of marriage is just a "paradigm", one among many:

>> "'Marriage' means different things to different people.
>> For me, the paradigm of marriage is an exclusive,
>> indissoluble covenant between a man and a woman
>> entering a partnership for life, ordered to their good
>> and open to the procreation and education of their
>> children. Not every marriage matches all the features
>> of this paradigm."

Second, he undermines his own view by pointing out that "Australian civil law on marriage varies from my paradigm" and that in "an ageing society, the state has an interest in recognising and affirming relationships between persons committed to supporting each other, regardless of their sexual orientation."

Third, he opens the door for official marriage recognition, sanctioned by a majority of the married population, rather than by the church:

>> "Many same sex couples tell us their relationship is
>> identical with marriage. Until the majority of married
>> couples are convinced this is so, politicians would
>> be wise not to consider undoing the distinction
>> between marriage and civil unions."

Rather than taking an absolutist position on marriage, he's entertaining public interest and popular views as reasons for introducing new models of relationship recognition, including marriage.

My reading of Brennan’s article is that he is soft on civil marriage for same-sex couples. I think it reveals a conflict between Brennan the humanist and Brennan the catholic priest. This is echoed in the comments of Father Carl Mackander, the priest from Orange quoted in Monday's article from the Central Western Daily http://www.centralwesterndaily.com.au/news/local/news/general/gay-marriage-a-divisive-issue/2003831.aspx?storypage=0 , who treads a careful line between civil law and church law.

If I were you I’d be cautious about using Brennan to support your anti-gay rhetoric.

RoBert of course it is, its in Gods laws too. Thats why Lesbins make good Mums.

Nice trolling Huggins .
But with that attitude if you see any large girls on Harleys you might want to start running.

This is probably the most pathetic and bigoted argument against gay marriage I have heard so far, and is a combination of emotional blackmail, half truths and outright lies.

Gay women in relationships have 1000s of children every year in Australia through artificial insemination, to unknown fathers, and raise them. Legalising gay marriage is unlikely to have any effect on the number of children produced, only giving the children legal security.

As far as adoption is concerned, marriage is only one of many factors, and there is nothing legally to stop a single woman from adopting, gay or otherwise. Family law always takes the consideration of the child above all else, and given the shortage of children to adopt, most very deserving couples never get the chance.

Couples over 40 are legally perfectly capable of adopting, but are never allocated children, unusual circumstances such as 2 gay men would certainly preclude adoption, legal rights or not.

I have commented previously that once the "think about the children" argument is raised, it is generally the sign that all rational arguments have been exhausted.

So can we take it that the Religious Right is now going to support the forcible sterilisation of heterosexuals who are also not equipped to bear or raise children? After all, if the interests of children are paramount, then the current system of allowing any two people who want to swap body fluids to breed is plainly going to result in terrible suffering on the part of the children. We don't allow someone to control a car unless they have done a test and extensive training. Obviously the control children is far more dangerous in the wrong hands than control of a vehicle -- so when does the campaign to introduce Parenting Licenses begin? And we should promote abortion, of course, because that reduces the risk of children suffering for years.

When the myrmidons of the Church start to take their pro-child rhetoric seriously and support genuine measures to end bad parenting, then I will known that their stated motives are genuine. Till then this all sounds like someone trying to find an excuse.

As a ward of the state from the age of 4 to 17, my own worst experience was with both a male and female guardian.

The family (mother and father with three kids), paid by the govt to look after us, were so pathetic they gave their 6 year old daughter pornographic material of adults and kids together. This was exposed to me by the paid domestic servants. In many ways which parents can be judged, I remember them as animals through my observations as a 15 to 17 year old.

So, my experience, along with my own thoughts and knowledge about others, is that all kinds of relationships for adults can be both good and bad for children. There is simply no way to define the perfect family.

I believe that discriminating against gay couples in terms of children is ridiculous. There may be and are many homosexual couples that could provide children with a fantastic life experience, just as many single parents do.

Further, there are many heterosexual parents that can also prove disastrous for children.

Woulfe has nailed the weakness in this argument. IF same-sex couples are demonstrably inferior parents then there may be a case for restricting their rights to adopt children. But the author presents no evidence to support this claim, and indeed dismisses what appears to be solid evidence that contradicts his position.

If we are to deny gays the same rights as other citizens on this basis we need convincing evidence – not just prejudices warmed over as hypotheses - that same-sex couples are indeed a poorer option for the child.

And even if such evidence is forthcoming, it doesn’t necessarily kill the case for gay marriage. There is no necessary connection between marriage and the right to raise a child, and indeed in many states gays have the right to adopt but not to marry

THE ISSUE....is not science but morality.

No amount of 'surveys' or 'evidence' of educational or social scores can change the simple fact that to deny a child of it's genetic mum or dad for the sake of 'gay sex' is abuse of a heinous kind.

Raising a child in a 'gay' family is ludicrous, immoral, and tragic.

This is a good FORUM, I started here a little while ago been ignorant but the wise folk here got me thinking about Gay Marraige. I have Lesbin neighbors with kids and they are realy good Mum's so I think David might be wrong even tho he means well.

ALGOisrICH, I thnik u are also wrong dont u know any Gay Parents? I am Christan but I dont think Jesus would care if Parents are Gay so long as they care for theyre kids and love them

David says "Opposition to gay marriage is all about the child, and no parliament has the right to impose a motherless life on a little child." This implies that legalising same-sex marriage will lead to more children with parents of only one gender.

Firstly, if that was the case I don't think that's a bad thing. The empirical research is that such children are no worse off than children from male/female relationships. Gay parents put far more effort (and money) into becoming parents than straight parents (no drunken accidents) so these are wanted, loved children, and wanted, loved children are more likely to contribute positively to society. Also, children raised by those who have historically been discriminated against may be more likely to be understanding and accepting of the diversity in our community - again, a good thing. You can see many happy same-sex couples, quite a few with children at www.thepotentialweddingalbum.org. I am heterosexual and very happy for there to be more families of this type in our community.

Secondly, I doubt that same-sex marriage will actually lead to more children. People generally have children because they want them - and as noted above it takes effort to have kids if you're gay - not because the government has notionally sanctioned them doing so. Are a same-sex couple who would not have had children otherwise really going to change their minds on kids because they can get married? I doubt it, they are independent decisions.

David also says "Homosexual relations do not give rise to children, so such relations are of no institutional importance to society." Plenty of heterosexual relationships do not give rise to children but they are still of importance to society - society should encourage all happy, stable couples, not designate some as more worthy than others on the basis of sexual orientation.

What is of institutional importance in our society is the principle of not discriminating based on sexual orientation and sending a message to a section of the community at much higher risk of suicide and depression that they are considered equal.

David van Gend writes this here http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=2271&page=0

“The iceberg of clinical fact looming up in the dark is this: that homosexuals who want to become heterosexual can and do change, as authoritative medical research has now demonstrated. Given the will, and skilled therapy, there can be an end to the nightmare of same-sex attraction. That is the best news for our heartsick friends down below deck, but it is bad news for the complacent triumphalists of the Gay Titanic.

Bad news for their tall tale that being gay is like being black, an immutable inborn identity. Bad news, in the debate on gay marriage, for their false analogies with apartheid and Aborigines, since blacks cannot stop being blacks, but gays can stop being gay.

Homosexuality emerges in its truer light, not as a minority "genetic identity" but as a complex conditioned behaviour, which can and does change.”

This is from where his is coming. Narrow and ugly religious bigotry disguised as protecting the children. Disgusting!

David van Gend’s words on this subject should be dismissed out of hand. The compassionate forward thinking majority will not agree with them. Nor should they.

David

My most serious objection to gay marriage is it might make gays respectable, that is lend them the same semblance of respectability marriage folk wrap themselves up in. Let's stop kidding the kids that marriage is stable or respectable.

Thank you David van Gend for injecting an eloquent breath of sanity into the SSM debate.

Your obvious deep-felt concern for children stands in stark contrast to the selfishness of those who are pushing for same-sex "marriage".

They would deliberately seek to deprive children of their natural birthright of a mother and a father merely to fill the emptiness in their own lives.

They talk of their "fundamental human right" to marry with nary a thought of the consequences for children.

Shame on them and plaudits to you.

I don't have any statistics on outcomes for children in single parent households, and I can't be bothered looking them up. Anecdotally, I know that kids with one mum and no dad often do better than kids with one of each. And I very much doubt that kids with one dad or mum do much worse, statistically, than kids with one of each. This suggests that the presence of mum or dad isn't as important as it's cracked up to be. And I cannot plausibly see how two mums/dads could be worse than one. At the worst, homosexual parenting is as bad as single parenting - and the kids of single parents seem to turn out fine. At best, homosexual parents are better parents than heterosexuals. What, exactly, is the problem here?

It's a good sign of someone who has run out of valid arguments, that they resort to screeching, 'BUT THINK OF THE CHILDREN!'

The wellbeing of children is actually their last concern - what they're really doing is using children as whipping boys for their own bigotry.

Gay couples have children, regardless of gay marriage laws.

Prohibiting gay marriage is telling the children of these couples that their families are not considered legitimate by society. They are being told they are abnormal and that their parents are inadequate to raise them.

This is protecting the children? Or protecting conservative sensibilities?

David, take your ignorant fear elsewhere please. Those of us that really do put the rights and protection of the children before our prejudices will be better served to do so.

It's a good sign of someone who has run out of valid arguments, that they resort to screeching, that those who proclaim'BUT THINK OF THE CHILDREN!' are out of argument.

Sorry Clownfish.. Gay marriage and Gay adoption are immoral, degenerate and socially destructive. We will not survive such step into darkness and misery.

But HEY.... we know where you are coming from. Paragraph 1 of Marcuse "Repressive Tolerance"....

Of COURSE you want a 'tolerant' society...that's why you made your hideous remark about opponents 'screeching'.....

Here is your ideological foundation for that:

http://www.marcuse.org/herbert/pubs/60spubs/65repressivetolerance.htm

The conclusion reached is that the realization of the objective of tolerance would call for INtolerance toward prevailing policies, attitudes, opinions, and the extension of tolerance to policies, attitudes, and opinions WHICH ARE OUTLAWED or SUPRESSED. In other words, today tolerance appears again as what it was in its origins, at the beginning of the modern period--a partisan goal, a subversive liberating notion and practice.

Your version of 'tolerance' is the same as Marcuse's

'SUBVERSIVE'

TrashcanMan, writes

'Prohibiting gay marriage is telling the children of these couples that their families are not considered legitimate'

Prohibiting polygamy or incestual marriages is telling the children of these couples that their families are not considered legitimate.

Runner.

"Prohibiting polygamy or incestual marriages is telling the children of these couples that their families are not considered legitimate"

You are correct. Although I'm guessing you're not arguing to legitimise these types of relationships.

Your deep emulsion in Christian mythology and it's associated dogma would prevent you from considering polygomy as anything but the work of the 'devil'. Of course, while I wouldn't recommend it, polygomous relationships aren't necessarily any more harmful than any other heterosexual relationship, assuming all is consensual. The fact that they are illegal is purely a result of a socially constructed morality that has little to do with cause and effect which is what true morality should be based on.

As for incestual relationships: despite their rarity and therefore low significance in this debate which affects a much larger proportion of the population, there are obvious physiological impacts associated with this type of relationship which offer an ACTUAL REASON for preventing them from proceeding. Therefore this is an argument against such relationships which isn't based on fear and loathing.

ALGORE,

Existing policies, opinions and attitudes need to be challenged for society to continue to evolve and improve. Hence, the abolition of slavery, women and native Australians voting, corporal punishment, torture, burning witches, or any number progressive changes to legal, political or social norms in history.

Early Christians were subversive.

The suffrage movement was subversive.

The anti-slavery movement was subversive.

It's not a dirty word for those of us who welcome change.

David:”Homosexual relations do not give rise to children, so such relations are of no institutional importance to society.”
“Opposition to gay marriage is all about the child, and no parliament has the right to impose a motherless life on a little child.”

Gay couples for a long time have been able to foster children from 0 – 18 as a permanent placement.

Gay couples raising children is already happening.

I see marriage as a voluntary contract between two people, personally I don’t care what gender the two people are. Does religion have something to do with obtaining a marriage certificate?

I imagine legally, death of one or both of the parents it may be important for any children, other family, to have a legal document that clarifies their roles in law. I think NZ has a Civil Union certificate or agreement. Some ministers there will do a religious ceremony for them as a symbolic type thing.

“A motherless life”? Govt imposes that on children every day several times a day.

ALGOREisRICH please provide your evidence that gay marriage is 'immoral, degenerate and socially destructive'.

Of course, if you resort to arguing from the Bible, I shall argue back from holy word of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, to whit: 'The CotFSM has no judgement on same sex marriage, for/against; that is to say, all are welcome into the loving embrace of His Noodly Appendage. (And there are many gay/bi members).'

My deity trumps your deity.

Some moral algebra: correctly identify X and Y.

'One of the most pressing problems facing America in these early days of the 21st century, is that of X marriage, especially between Y and Y.'

Our primary interest in this article is not what men say, but what does God’s Word say about this practice, which history proves is disastrous. (We say this, advisedly, because every single civilization which has practiced X, has ended as rotten hulks on the garbage heap of history). This is something which cannot be honestly denied!'

'Those who seek to force integration in the schools and churches are now beginning to admit that their real purpose is to bring about X.'

Several people raise the second-tier argument for or against gay marriage / fostering / adoption / surrogacy: the argument that children do (or do not do) perform as well in measurable outcomes when raised in same-sex households. The reason I do not labour this point is that those who cannot see that a child needs a mother and father - or at least a fighting chance of entering life with a mother and father - and do not see that such state-enforced deprivation of a mother or father is the fatal flaw at the heart of gay marriage, well, such people are not going to be persuaded by arguments from social science. That is why I said that the argument is 'irrelevant'(although perhaps it would be better to say 'of only secondary relevance', since policy makers should take it into account as part of the 'best interests of the child')and why, in an earlier article, I spelled it out more clearly:

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=10049&page=2

"As to the nature of this harm, evidence from social science is of only secondary importance. Certainly the best-designed studies confirm the obvious - that a child does best in every objective respect when raised by his or her own parents, or in the nearest equivalent context of an adopting mother and father. In the light of this research, the American College of Pediatricians in 2004 concluded:

"The environment in which children are reared is absolutely critical to their development. Given the current body of research, the American College of Pediatricians believes it is inappropriate, potentially hazardous to children, and dangerously irresponsible to change the age-old prohibition on homosexual parenting, whether by adoption, foster care, or by reproductive manipulation. This position is rooted in the best available science."

"However, nobody needs to resort to "the best available science" to defend the obvious insight that a little child needs both a mother and a father. The judgment of anyone who cannot see this as a self-evident fact of life, as the most primal and necessary condition of a child’s wellbeing, is suspect."

For "obvious insight" read prejudice.

As I pointed out in comments on that article, David, "obvious insight" is not a safe way to organise our lives:

>> In a modern technology-rich world, folk wisdoms
>> (“self-evident facts of life”) are no longer a
>> safe way of organising human societies. The world
>> turned out to be round, not flat, and science is
>> showing that “common sense” often lets us down
>> when dealing with complex human societies.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10049#161971

Further, the American College of Paediatricians, whom you insist on quoting, is not a scientific organisation. It's a breakaway group of culture warriors, with an ideological rather that scientific or clinical agenda: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10049#161875

Since marriage is a covenant between two adult human beings, the introduction of existing or potential children is a furphy.

David,

Isn’t the American College of Pediatricians an impressive sounding name. Just goes to show how names can be deceptive.

Here is their positions page. http://www.acpeds.org/Position-Statements-Where-We-Stand.html

I suggest that folks have a read of this ‘position’ with its cleverly hidden bigotry.

http://www.acpeds.org/On-the-Promotion-of-Homosexuality-in-the-Schools.html

And for those wishing to live in a fool’s paradise, this one is great.

http://www.acpeds.org/Abstinence-Education.html

David

I rest my case. I asserted, as my best judgement of what is good for a child, that a mother really does matter in a baby's life, and 'Woulf' and David disagree. Fair enough - it is a matter of judgement, and that is the deepest function of human intelligence. I do not, like 'Woulf' and David, insist that their opposing judgements are 'prejudice' and 'bigotry' but I do consider their judgement to lack insight into the vital importance of the relationship between mother and child.

As to the American College of Paediatricians: the views of such doctors, in their hundreds, who stake their professional reputations on a similar judgement of what a child needs, should not be dismissed as 'bigotry' but simply accepted for what it is: the best judgement of intelligent paediatricians, who disagree with the judgement of many other informed paediatricians.

This debate will come down to numbers, as all democratic issues do, and I only hope there are more Australians who share my / Frank Brennan's / Margot Somerville's / etc etc judgement - that a mother and a father matters to a baby uniquely and in a primal way, and therefore the State should not impose a motherless or fatherless life on a child (for instance, via via surrogacy for singles or adoption for gays). If there are more Australians who share the judgement of 'Woulf' and David, so be it.

David,

You misunderstand what prejudice means. A prejudice is a predisposition, which prevents objective deliberation about something. You are a person of religion and that is influencing your thoughts. I am an Atheist and I do not have that influence. Atheism doesn’t influence me other than to look for prejudice and point it out.

The main opposition to same-sex marriage etc is from religion i.e. from a predisposition. You would accept that a Muslim might be predisposed to wear a Burka whereas an Atheist (And your religion) would not be so inclined. Atheists don’t stop at one religion as do you.

This is not a ‘numbers’ game, although it could come down to that. That is quite disgusting in istself. We are talking about basic human rights that are not afforded people of same-sex orientation.

Having people as second class citizens makes them vulnerable to abuse. The evidence shows this is happening now. It is a seldom occasion for religious people to show concern about this. It is always the Simpsonian cry of, “Why wont someone think of the children!”

It wouldn’t be too far fetched to say that the American College of Paediatricians is comprised in the main of people with a conservative religious background. Nothing strange in that, after all, it is the USA.

You think they would be proud of that fact instead of making it difficult to find out thus distorting their real reasons for objections to homosexuality.

David

Well spotted.

If you read their manifesto the American College of Paediatricians are a Christian fundamentalist society, who allow their religious beliefs to prejudice their professional judgement.

A mother and a father do matter in the relationship, but they are not the only factors or even the most important, as the results from children raised in same sex relationships have shown.

Far more important is the stability of the home and relationship, and the support given to the children. This is lacking in many more heterosexual relationships than same sex families.

>> "a mother really does matter in a baby's life, and
>> 'Woulf' and David disagree."

Please don't put words into my mouth, David. I've disputed your article on two grounds:

1. As a covenant between two adults, marriage takes place independently of any existing or subsequent children. Unlike a driver's licence which is legally required before driving, marriage is not of itself prescriptive of subsequent behaviour or child-bearing (though the specific commitments made by the parties in the marriage ceremony might be). Children are irrelevant to the issue of whether adults should be allowed to marry.

2. Arguing that studies showing that children raised by same-sex couples have the same or better outcomes as those raised by opposite-sex couples should be put aside in deference to "obvious insight" elevates prejudice over science.

Neither of these involves me disagreeing with the assertion that "a mother really matters in a baby's life". On this question I defer to the scholarly evidence, which as far as I know doesn't address this assertion. However it does indicate that the quality of the parenting matters more than the gender of the parents.

Jim Woulfe

<< We are talking about "basic human rights" that are not afforded people of same-sex orientation>>

We are talking about "basic human rights" that are not afforded people of incestuous orientation.

We are talking about "basic human rights" that are not afforded people of polyamorous orientation.

We are talking about "basic human rights" that are not afforded people of child marriage orientation.

We are talking about "basic human rights" that are not afforded people of bestial orientation.

Inanely parroting "basic human rights" doesn't make them so.
Just like claiming to represent 10% of the population doesn't make it so.
Just like claiming a genetic basis for homosexuality doesn't make it so.
Just like claiming homosexually "parented" children have better outcomes doesn't make it so.
Just like claiming homosexuality is immutable doesn't make it so.
Just because constant parroting convinces gullible apologists to parrot to others what you have parroted to them doesn't make it so.

"Just because constant parroting convinces gullible apologists to parrot to others what you have parroted to them doesn't make it so."
-Proxy

Quite right, Proxy. Couldn't have put it better myself.

Just like claiming homosexuality is unnatural doesn't make it so.
Just like claiming that sexual orientation is a choice doesn't make it so.
Just like claiming that homosexuality is morally equivalent to incest, pedophilia etc. doesn't make it so.
Just like claiming all gays are out to get everyone doesn't make it any more than a paranoid delusion.

You see, Proxy, no matter how often nor how loudly you repeat your sophisms, no amount of wishful thinking will ever make them come true. Nature pays no heed to the inconsequential opinions of men, and reality does not bend to one's will (no, not even if you have read 'The Secret').

Post Script:

Sorry, I forgot to add this earlier:

Just like claiming that evidence is the plural of anecdote.

No takers?

X, in this case, was 'interracial'. Y was 'black and white'.

'One of the most pressing problems facing America in these early days of the 21st century, is that of interracial marriage, especially between black and white.'

Doesn't sound so defensible when you exchange 'gay' for 'interracial', does it?

<<Some moral algebra:>>
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11272#190412
Some immoral canardery actually.

<<Doesn't sound so defensible when you exchange 'gay' for 'interracial', does it?>>
The false analogy trotted out yet again to fool the gullible.

Race is genetically predetermined.
Homosexuality is not genetically predetermined.

Race is immutable.
Sexual behaviour is not immutable.

If the diversity of all the races can be applied to the concept of racial equality
why do homosexual activists exclude the diversity of all the sexualities from their demands for "equality"?
ie Why do they discriminate against incestuous marriage, child marriage, polygamous marriage and bestial marriage?

Trouble is, if they didn't discriminate, then everybody would twig to what was going on.
To be a hypocrite or to be inclusive?
What a dilemma.

Ultimately pragmatism rules the day.
Lies, personal attacks, hypocrisy.
Whatever it takes.

Proxy,

"Sexual behaviour is not immutable."

Without you having an anecdotal hissy spit, would you care to share some of your own not-immutable personal sexual experiences. Most of us are adults or broadminded adolescents here, so you can say what you like.
I love a bit of porn on Sunday morn. Now, where's that popcorn.

David

<<I love a bit of porn on Sunday morn>>
Who cares?
Just don't call it marriage and ram it down the throats of children.

The existence and testimony of ex-homosexuals such as:
Linda Jernigan
Charlene Coltrane
Michael Glatze
Jackie Clune
Janet Boynes
demonstrate that homosexuality is not immutable.

Please provide just five examples of people who have changed their race.
I'll even accept Michael Jackson as your number one.

I said not anecdotal. Gee! you are gullible. Do you know anything about these people, their psychological make up, their religious beliefs/fears, their insecurities etc.

Have you any friends who are same-sex oriented (Apart from possibly yourself)and if so, what do they think of your bigoted rantings?

David

<<Gee! you are gullible.>>
I guess I was gullible in believing that you might eventually bring evidence to the table.
I even helped you by providing you with the first, albeit whimsical, example of mutability of race.

<<Have you any friends who are same-sex oriented (Apart from possibly yourself)and if so, what do they think of your bigoted rantings?>>

<<I said not anecdotal.>>

So you are prepared to accept anecdotal "evidence" from me in favour of your proposition but contrarily condemn as anecdotal the testimony of people who undermine your position.
You truly are a progressive!

I guess it's what one would expect from a self-confessed voyeur who solicits porn over the internet.
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11272#190744

Don't be too hard (Pun intended) on porn, dear Proxy, methinks you need some.

David

Proxy,

This is very telling ins't it? http://www.philosophy-religion.org/handouts/homophobia.htm

Which category do you fit (Another pun intended)

"Researchers at the University of Georgia conducted an experiment involving 35 homophobic men and 29 nonhomophobic men as measured by the Index of Homophobia scale. All the participants selected for the study described themselves as exclusively heterosexual both in terms of sexual arousal and experience.

Each participant was exposed to sexually explicit erotic stimuli consisting of heterosexual, male homosexual and lesbian videotapes (but not necessarily in that order). Their degree of sexual arousal was measured by penile plethysmography, which precisely measures and records male tumescence.

Men in both groups were aroused by about the same degree by the video depicting heterosexual sexual behavior and by the video showing two women engaged in sexual behavior. The only significant difference in degree of arousal between the two groups occurred when they viewed the video depicting male homosexual sex: 'The homophobic men showed a significant increase in penile circumference to the male homosexual video, but the control [nonhomophobic] men did not.'"

David

'Homosexuality is not genetically predetermined.'

'Homosexual behaviour is largely shaped by genetics and random environmental factors, according to findings from the world's largest study of twins': http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080628205430.htm

Nice try at equating homosexuality with incest and paedophilia, too. Typical last resort of the bigot.

Proxy,

Anyone that knows anything about research and statistics knows that anecdotal information is worth absolutely nothing, which is all the evidence that you are able to provide.

There are numerous peer reviewed studies to show that sexual orientation is pre determined from a young age, and the link Clownfish provided is just one.

Secondly the orientation is not always completely straight or completely gay, and those that have been "cured" have generally been somewhere in the middle.

Finally, this level of bigotry typically comes from two sources, either those that are religious fundamentalists, or those with repressed gay tendencies. Which category do you fall into?

Shadow Minister writes

'There are numerous peer reviewed studies to show that sexual orientation is pre determined from a young age, and the link Clownfish provided is just one.'

Then he/she also believes that adults with a bent towards kids had a 'pre determined bent from a young age.'

Ridiculous really but the logic is not surprising.

runner,

"Then he/she also believes that adults with a bent towards kids had a 'pre determined bent from a young age.'"

This could be true but the difference is the harm done by the power differential. People who do harm need to be constrained.

Do you understand now or should I make the words simpler.

David

Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc,

and then again some cricketers and footballers could have a predetermined bent towards group sex. You obviously don't see how ridiculous your arguement is and then again I doubt whether you want to.

runner,

You just don't see how ridiculous you come across, period.

How embarrassing!

David

Perhaps, runner, you might suggest that scientists work on a cure for black skin - I mean, it's obviously genetically predetermined, and statistics show that being black is associated with any number of poor socio-economic outcomes.

<<People who do harm "towards kids" need to be constrained.>>

Which is exactly why homosexuals need to be constrained from being "married".
Because homosexual "marriage" would give them "entitlement" to kids.

Proxy,

I have already answered runner. No need to repeat myself.

David

Proxy: "homosexual "marriage" would give them "entitlement" to kids."

That is not true. Extending marriage rights to same-sex couples changes nothing in this regard. You are simply making that up.

Trashcan Man.

It is truly breathtaking!

Homosexual activists claim that a child is no better off with a mother and a father than that same child would be with two "fathers".

Do they actually believe this themselves?

If so, their sanity must be in serious question.

If not, their honesty must be in serious question.

I wonder whether the foster boys who were "fathered" by these foster "daddies" would agree with the homosexual activists on this forum?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-480151/Gay-couple-left-free-abuse-boys--social-workers-feared-branded-homophobic.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1562313/Fear-of-prejudice-let-gay-carers-abuse-boys.html

Well proxy, should I put up a list of links to stories about pedophile priests now?

Or heterosexual foster carers abusing kids?

I'm betting I can find more than you.

<< should I put up a list of links to stories about pedophile priests now?>>

Please do. I'll even help you.

Considering that 81% of the victims were boys, the story of the "pedophile priests" takes us right back to homosexual behaviour and the threat it poses to young boys.
It's all documented in this link:
http://www.usccb.org/nrb/johnjaystudy/

Actually, Proxy, most abusers of young boys are heterosexual - counter-intuitive as that may seem.

http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/Articles/000,002.htm :
'Regressed offenders are typically heterosexual in their adult relationships ... they date women and marry them. They often are parents, stepparents or extended family members of their victims. By all appearances — and by their own self-identification — they are straight.'

http://www.fallwell.com/pedophilia.html :
'Groth and Birnbaum (1978) found that none of the 175 adult males in their sample – all of whom were convicted in Massachusetts of sexual assault against a child – had an exclusively homosexual adult sexual orientation.

In one review of the scientific literature, noted authority Dr. A. Nicholas Groth wrote:

“Are homosexual adults in general sexually attracted to children and are preadolescent children at greater risk of molestation from homosexual adults than from heterosexual adults? There is no reason to believe so...

The research to date all points to there being no significant relationship between a homosexual lifestyle and child molestation.'

http://ezinearticles.com/?Male-Sexual-Abuse-of-Boys&id=4086490 :
'Pedophiles, even if they only abuse boy children, are different from homosexuals who like to have sex with younger men. There is a profound difference between sexual abuse and gay sex - one connotes control over a child, coercion, force, exploitation and abuse, and the other connotes a sexual choice and an encounter freely entered into by two adult males.'

Another bigotry falls flat in the face of the evidence.

Proxy,

Yet again you cherry pick one bad example from years ago in another country and expect it to represent the entire gay population.How about the mother that sold her daughter into prostitution in Tas as a recent local event, along with the thousands of other children abused by their married parents?

Surveys of thousands of gay parents and children show that there is no measurable difference in the stability of the children, or their ability to function in society from heterosexual married couples.

Unless you can provide more than cherry pick anecdotal evidence, your breathless outrage is a thinly veiled pretext for bigotry.

Proxy,

Even if your assertion was true, that the priests were gay. The high incidence of paedophilia among priests compared to other segments of society, in particular compared to homosexual couples, would imply that they are paedophiles because they are priests, not because they are gay.

I don't necessarily think this is the case though. I'm just pointing out the floor in your logic and the obvious prejudice biasing your thought processes.

Question:
When is a homosexual act not a homosexual act?

Answer:
When it's counter the agenda of homosexual activists

<<Actually, most abusers of young boys are heterosexual - counter-intuitive as that may seem>>!

And then the "proof" via a homosexual activist website!
http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/Articles/000,002.htm

What a classic!
Isn't it handy to be able to provide your own "scientific evidence"?

Just about sums up the "gay" "marriage" argument though:

Counter-intuitive
Counter-reason
Counter-logic
Counter-nature
Counter-children's best interest

In summary,

counterfeit marriage.

No-one said it wasn't a homosexual act. It obviously is.

There are plenty of examples of straight men having gay sex:
Prisoners
Priests
Boys in boarding schools
Footy teams having gang bangs

I dare you to go to prison for a day and tell the prisoners they're gay. See how far you get...

To paraphrase Nietzsche: even homosexuality has been corrupted--by marriage!

Obviously Proxy can't handle counter-intuitive facts.

Quantum mechanics is counter-intuitive, too, yet your computer still works.

Are you saying that the American Psychological Association, the National Association of Social Workers, the American Academy of Child Psychiatrists and the Child Welfare League of America are all homosexual groups?

Poor old Proxy, seeing queers under the bed everywhere! You must walk the streets with your back to the wall, buttocks tightly clenched, in case those wicked homosexual activists sneakily try and convert you!

Proxy,

With paedophile priests there is something perverted going on that is not just homosexual.

Similarly Rape and child abuse is heterosexual and occurs within marriage far more than paedophilia by priests, but only an idiot would try and generalise ongoing heterosexual relations with a few examples of rape.

If you look hard enough you will always find some version of sexual perversion that backs up your bigotry, but the proof of the pudding is in the study of thousands of same sex relationships v.s. similar heterosexual relationships, and here there are many studies that show virtually no difference.

If you wish to maintain any credibility, try providing a link to a credible study that supports your view, otherwise you are simply spewing unsupported hate.

<<The most serious objection to gay marriage is that it means gay parenting, and gay parenting means depriving a child of either his mother or his father.>>

And which naïve supporter of same-sex marriage would have thought that this meant literally taking children from their biological mothers and giving them to former lesbian partners?

This can and has been and will moreso be taken to evermore extreme lengths should same sex “marriage” be legalised.

This is already happening, where more and more homosexual activist judges are deeming biological parents unsuitable for parenting simply because they disagree with the homosexual agenda.

Mother loses her children to former lesbian partner:
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article702829.ece

Judge Orders Evangelical Christian Mom Lisa Miller to Give Her Child to Gay Ex-Lover
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-6037741-504083.html

And you naively thought you were doing the right thing by supporting same sex “marriage” as a "fundamental human right".

Homosexual activists will applaud this sort of "progress" but surely it's not too late for all you hangers on to realise you've been duped.