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.