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.