"Marriage and family formation are about something much deeper than civil equality; they are about a natural reality which society did not create..."

Kinda obvious when you think about it...

The argument is ridiculous given the state of traditional marriage (and de facto relationships). How many children are living with a sole parent? A household that harbours domestic violence or drug abuse? A household where the weekly income is fed to the pokies rather than being spent on food? I agree that a child deserves caring, loving parents but sadly many do not get them. I would much rather see a child raised by a caring same sex couple rather than the situations I have witnessed where the relationship is between a man and a woman

Marriage is a societal creation.

Redefining marriage to include gay and lesbian couples would hardly weaken the basic idea of a mother and a father for most children.

Heterosexual divorce is the scourge that most affects the basic idea of a child living with their biological mother and father under one roof.

Gay and lesbian marriage would be less significant reasons for a child living without a parent than death of a parent, especially as the average age of parents increases.
.

I totally agree. I am thankful I grew up in a family that went through hard and good times together with love, care and commitment to each other. We never had to deal with relationship tensions as most have to deal with today. My father knew what was expected of his family and encouraged its security.

People who argue for the traditional western idea of marriage, and the idea that a child needs a mother and a father are not bigots - or not necessarily so.

The problem, it seems to me, is that these people have not looked at the many different ways in which other human societies have successfully raised children.

What is the argument that the nuclear family is the best way to organise our society? What happened to the extended family? This type of family provided a variety of male and female role models which is far more usefull than one example of how a man behaves and how a woman behaves.

Kids also need an uncle, a grandfather, an older brother, a younger brother, an auntie, a grandmother, a big sister, a little sister.

I totally agree that a child 'should' have a father figure and a mother figure but these examples don't need to be the biological parents. Penny Wong or her partner may have a father or a brother who can provide the male role model for their child.

I totally agree with Dr David, "Marriage and family formation are about something much deeper than civil equality; they are about a natural reality which society did not create and which only a decadent party such as the Greens, so out of touch with nature, would seek to destroy".

So Sparkyq and McReal believe the unhealthy state into which many children are born today gives equal right to homosexuals being parents. Rather than deal with the unhappy and evil state of society they pose an equally disturbed state for children, a motherless / fatherless society. They approve of promiscuity and adultery as normal while undermining those that teach in defence of divine relationships of the committed family.

They wrongly assume we approve of the current social conditions that prevail. They do not understand those in society that sponsor pre- marriage counseling, support struggling families with counsel and practical assistance. Until they can contribute to healing this problem they will continue to promote the social decedance that prevails.

Mollydukes,
We havent seen the social outcome of Penny Wongs experiment yet so do not use it as a norm for children. Western society is individualistic in character while others are tribal which makes a difference. The natural extended family is the best ideal, because there is a biological identity deeper than the mates in the class room.

Philo you are so lucky. But why do you always think that you and your life experience is the right way for everyone?

There certainly was tension between fathers and mothers back in the 50s'. My parents, were both good people, not bludgers, raised in christian families, but were totally unsuited psychologically to be together.

The tension was always there - sometimes violence - and we all - my brother and sister, suffered significantly and continue to deal with the problems that a dysfunctional marriage creates.

From your experience you see that a traditional nuclear family is the answer. From my experience I see that there needs to be alternatives and from my experience with gay people, I am sure that they can make good parents.

@ Mollydukes, Wednesday, 31 August 2011 8:56:51 AM - Excellent post!!

especially this - " ... a variety of [good] male and female role models .. is far more useful than one example of how a man behaves and how a woman behaves."
....................................

But this .....

"Sparkyq and McReal ... pose an equally disturbed state for children, a motherless / fatherless society. They approve of promiscuity and adultery as normal while undermining those that teach in defence of divine relationships of the committed family."
@ Philo, Wednesday, 31 August 2011 8:57:21 AM

Utter, Utter Rubbish, Philo.

YOU do NOT speak for me. YOU have No right to extend my comments to put words in my mouth. I think you should recant & Apologise.

Philo, you are right in pointing to the absurdity of justifying same-sex marriage on the basis that some heterosexual marriages are failures. As I wrote in an earlier OO article (November 2010, http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=11272):

"At this point the curious argument is always raised that it is better for a child to have two loving same-sex carers than a dysfunctional pair of biological parents. But neither of these scenarios is in the interests of a child – and only the same-sex scenario is preventable. It is a fallacy to argue that because a child in one household has abusive parents, we are therefore justified in placing another child in another household where there are two “married” men and no mother. No, we must reject both scenarios for the sake of the child, restraining and retraining those parents who would inflict abuse – or even removing the child from harm’s way - and also denying those adults who would wilfully deprive a child of a mother or father."

Philo, please do not assume that either myself, or anyone else for that matter, approve of promiscuity or adultery, I do not. Nor do I believe that the state into which many children are born today gives equal right to homosexuals being parents. My point is that the argument being used that children born into “divine relationships of the committed family” is quite invalid given the evidence. I do not presume that you in any way approve of the prevailing social conditions, neither do I. A loving, caring upbringing for a child can be delivered by a same sex couple just as it can be in a “traditional” marriage

Rodney Croome, where are you? Surely there are many other non-homophobic writers in Australia. But not seeing any of them here.

Why the proliferation of homophobic articles on OLO?

Dumb question, this is not a site for balanced discussion. What was I thinking? Apologies.

" Social conservatives have long coddled a sweet nostalgia for the 1950s as the golden age of matrimony. This yearning usually accompanies confident claims that long-term monogamy is the only natural mating pattern for humans.

But just what is the “natural” human mating system?

Christopher Ryan and Cacilda Jethá, authors of Sex at Dawn, conclude that while people fall deeply in love and form wonderfully strong pair bonds, they also relish plenty of sexual variety.

Ryan and Jethá’s examination of data on mating patterns in traditional foraging societies – from the Curripaco people of Brazil to the Iroquois who lived in upstate New York until the 18th century – suggests that our ancestors spent most of evolutionary history behaving promiscuously, with occasional short-term relationships lasting months rather than years.

My own reading of the research leads me to infer that individuals have the capacity for almost infinite variety in their sexual behaviour, from rampant promiscuity to life-long monogamy.

Humans have evolved to make the best of the circumstances into which they are born. There are better ways to approach this type of behaviour than pontificating that one way of life is somehow “superior” to all others. We can learn much about relationships and happiness by understanding how economics interacts with our evolved behaviour to shape what individuals do under particular circumstances."

http://theconversation.edu.au/hells-bells-why-marriage-gets-hard-when-things-get-easy-1549

"It is a fallacy to argue that because a child in one household has abusive parents, we are therefore justified in placing another child in another household where there are two “married” men and no mother."

@ David van Gend, Wednesday, 31 August 2011 9:23:34 AM

Yes, it is fallacy. It is a false dichotomy.

David, yet your example is also 'a non-sequitur' and 'Non causa pro causa'.

Nobody is saying abusive parents are a reason to *then* place a child in a same-sex couple household.

The reality is that many gay and lesbian couples have previously been in heterosexual relationships that bore children. Often to try to confirm to past societal norms.

By the logic of "the children must have a father argument", then one might ask are two fathers better than one?

Well Ammonite, this is the thing......When a teenager becomes an adult...young adult I should say, there minds are focused on their own vision of awaking, and as long as the right amount of caring/love/and devotion is present, in my view.....the hormonal changes will kick in, and presto, mum/dad or mum/mum or dad/dad....goes out the window when the world around them is changing faster than the human biological clock ticks.

I don't think it matter at all who or what raises you. As long as the support is there when needed, it makes no difference.

Knowing what a child needs and knowing what teenager needs and knowing what turns us into as grownups, I think the same sex couples or other wise.....it makes no diff.

Life all comes in three stages.....Need...Want and fly.

Does it matter who gives you the attention at stage one?......of course it doesn't......Does it matter who's gives the attention at stage two, again, of course it doesn't.....and by the time stage three come into action....... 1 and 2 are just loving memories.

Cactus

The idea that there were often societies that raised children differently to the nuclear family is bunk. Every ancient history story I have ever read refers to the nuclear family, and someone knew who their mother was, knew who their father was, knew who their brothers and sisters were, knew who their uncle and aunts were etc.

This is everything from ancient Greeks to Eskimo, from Romans to Egyptians, and from tribes in Africa to the Incas.

There was a prolonged attempt to denigrate marriage by the feminist movement, and this has culminated in society no longer referring to “husband and wife”, but referring to “partners”. Further there was a prolonged attempt to denigrate fathers and to say that the father was not necessary, and a child could be raised by the mother and the state.

Now there is an attempt to say that a father or a mother is not necessary, but the child can be raised by a couple of homosexuals.

I have never known a feminist to get anything right, and I don’t believe homosexuals will get it right also.

The author wrote : (making) "children subservient to adult emotional needs".

The fact is that ALL parents do this to their children, in all kinds of ways. Most of which have negative effects on the psychological health of children.

Which is to say that ALL parents project their "sins" on to their children, and thus cripple them.

I would argue that is especially true of ALL right-wing Christians. Because they all essentially subscribe to the "spirit" vs "flesh" ideology which is at the root of the Christian "world"-view. Put in another right-wing Christian pedagogy is deeply and intrinsically TOXIC to any and every one that believes it, and to all children who are forced to suffer it.

This entire social and cultural game of antisexual, "spirit against flesh" education is so monstrous, so opposed to incarnate happiness and True human responsibility, that it must be considered THE primary social and philosophical issue of our time. Indeed it is the primary cause of all of our seemingly intractable cultural problems, including world-wide terrorism and ecological destruction.

Meanwhile some references which describe the cultural consequences of this monstrous TOXIC PEDAGOGY.

The work of Alice Miller via For Your Own Good : The Roots of Violence in Child-rearing, and her work altogether.

Spare the Child: The Religious Roots of Punishment and the Psychological Impact of Physical Abuse, by Philip Greven.

Sex, Mom & God by Frank Schaeffer. And his writings altogether -writings critical of the toxicity of USA right-wing religiosity. The leading edge of which is now being dramatized by Michelle Bachmann and guv-nor Perry. And promoted by James Dobson via the entirely toxic Focus on the Family.

A History of Childhood by Lloyd deMause - the history of child-hood abuse and its cultural consequences.

And of course this image re applied toxic pedagogy from an unspeakably vile film. Remembering that right-wing Christians uniformly thought this vile film was more than wonderful

http://www.allmoviephoto.com/photo/2003_the_passion_006.html

Will the intergenerational TOXIC CIRCLE ever be broken?

Attacking Christianity is a cheap and bigoted trick, often used by the homosexual and feminist movement.

Even Plato knew who his relatives were (father was Ariston, mother was Perictione, aunt was Solon etc), and Christianity wasn’t even around at that time.

There is no evidence of homosexuals raising children in any society throughout history, and I think there were good reasons for that.

Should we learn from the past?

Of course not says the feminist and homosexual.

The author is being disingenuous when he attempts to argue that only in same sex relationships are children victims of adult's emotional needs.

Practically every child born is at some point subject to adult emotional needs being considered before their own. This can result in serious long term damage when it's the norm rather than the exception. This type of damage to children overwhelmingly occurs in heterosexual relationships, and in heterosexual relationship breakdown and subsequent single parenthood.

If the primary concern is protecting children from emotionally inappropriate adult demands, start with where the problem is most urgent and widespread: in the heterosexual community.

Otherwise this piece is just another homophobic rant under the guise of "What about the children?"

Vanna why then is it known as the "nuclear family".

fail

Child abuse by extreme religous indocrination !!
www.youtube.com/watch?v=WV99QgZ4a-k@feature=player_embedded

Kenny
Regards what is a "nuclear family".

The term nuclear family once meant the biological mother and father and their children, with a surrounding extended family.

In our feminist corrupted and disfigured society, “nuclear family” now means the mother and her children (with perhaps mummy’s new boyfriend), minimal extended family, father paying child contact money to see his children once a fortnight, family court layers charging expensive fees, the not so interested staff at the local centerlink office, and often vists by the police and child welfare agency staff.

Under the new definition which I think is being proposed by homosexual marriage lobby groups, the term “nuclear family” is very similar to that under feminism, with an IVF clinic, sperm donors and medicare also being added.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12541#216744

Sparkyq, absolutely correct until the last sentence.

You see the problems you speak of were also manufactured by the social engineers from the Politically Correct Thought Police.

http://www.academia.org/the-origins-of-political-correctness/ corporate paedophiles all of them, promoting the neglect & abuse of children.

http://motherandbaby.ninemsn.com.au/family/familytime/8292286/hands-on-dads-smarter-kids this is what happens in a NORMAL, happy, healthy, harmonious family with a wife who knows the meaning of the words "partner & co-operation", who does not countermand everything a father does to protect his children because she has not been trained by the feMANazis to think she is better at parenting than him.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12541#216745

McReal, also correct, the ANTI family law act of 1975 must also be repealed when Tony Abbott becomes PM, along with every other piece of social treason committed by the closet communists to destroy the family.

http://www.rense.com/general32/americ.htm read all of it McReal, but pay particular attention to #40.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12541#216746

Spot on Philo & that is exactly WHY the closet communists sought to destroy our families, manufacture moral, ethical DE generation, neglect & abuse of children to beat christian, capitalist democracy.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8630135369495797236# these evil devil worshiping child abusers must be tried for treason ASAP.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12541#216749

Mollydukes, also correct, as well as banning GLBT marriage & lifestyle we must also rebuild the extended family over the nuclear family. This is another earlier example of social engineering designed to abuse children. The death of the extended family is just another reason why nuclear families are failing, ending in divorce.

It is not enough to go back to the 1950's, we must go back to the 1500's to restore the extended family to our society/culture.

The devil worshiping social engineers have been "white anting" our culture ever since the Protestant Christian, "Enlightenment" began democratising our world.

briar rose,
The reason more hetrosexual families fail is because they are the 99% the norm.

Ho Hum,
The constant use of the term "toxic" may suit your view but it does not reflect the reality of the Christian family. I've been around over 70 years and have witnessed the maturity of many Christian families, their self discipline and social achievements far outweigh the alternatives I have seen - money and power being their goals.

We hear so much about a child needing a father. What about the families that are made up of two father's. Isn't the mother as important.

What a child needs is at least one parent that loves and respects them.

Very few families live in isolation. They have uncles and aunties. They have grand ma and pa. They have close family friends. They have teachers and sport coaches. The have many other people of most sexes in their lives.

Very few children live in the perfect family with the perfect parents. A bad parent can and is worse that none at all.

It is only in the last couple of generations that children are bought up with both parents surviving until they reach adulthood.

In earlier times a big percentage of mothers died of disease or in child birth. War and disease took many fathers. The children survived. Those who had the support of loving extended families coped better.

It is the quality of the family that counts, not the makeup.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12541#216750

Philo, correct again, there is much moral & ethical DE generation to be undone.

A good start would be to UNdo everything done by every government federal, state & local since about 1963.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12541#216751

Actually Philo the evidence is already in on GLBT relationships.

feMANazis in Families, DOCS & Community services departments have been hiding DV, mental illness rates, dysfunctionality rates, drug & alcohol abuse, neglect & abuse of children in NON traditional families which is much higher, infinately worse.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12541#216754

Mollydukes, so on the basis of 1 single dysfunctional family you wish to justify the deliberate, premeditated neglect & abuse of even more children.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24sjYlydAuw&feature=watch_response_rev 2 wrongs don't make a right, mentally ill parents go on to abuse their children, the destructive cycle must be stopped, not promoted or speeded up, like you want to achieve.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12541#216755

McReal, augh didams, did the nasty man tell you an "inconvenient truth".

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12541#216757

David van Gend, sanity & logic at last, perfect posting.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12541#216758

Sparkyq, you are comparing apples & oranges again.

The dysfunctional, post apocalyptic families of today do not compere to the healthier, happier, more functional families before the moral & ethical DE generation of the mid 1960's began.

Many baby boomers are looking back on the sexual revolution with regret, moving back into the church.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12541#216759

Ammonite, nobody is in fear of homosexuals, we just want them back in the closet where they belong.

There is a big difference between bashing perverted minorities, or "tolerating" them without bashing them &/or hero worshipping them, encouraging mental illness.

Social liberals have always coddled a sweet nostalgia for the USSR circa 1917 which spauned an entire generation of disabled children to single mothers on welfare because the commissars told them all the family & church was rubbish, they were toasting the glorious revolution with "Sex, Vodka, Jazz & Charleston".

Stalin's purges were primarily to restore law, order, family values, patriarchy & the church. Trotsky, Bakunin & PC nearly destroyed the USSR before it started.

Flo,
"It is the quality that matters."

True, but what happens if the quality is not there?

Will this be hidden?

If homosexuals have lobbied so much for homosexual marriage, they will more than likely try to hide any poor quality marriages, and try to hide away children in homosexual marriages that are not happy.

The precedent has already been set with de facto relationships.

Feminists control most of social science research, and almost no research has been conducted into de fact relationships.

But data occasionally spills out regarding these relationships, and it appears that these relationships are generally far worse for children than marriage.

Homosexuals could also try and hide data concerning homosexual marriage.

Because there is such a close alliance between various feminists and homosexuals, no trust can be placed on homosexual lobby groups.

If you can ignore the occasional lapses into jingoism, this article is actually reasonably well thought-out and raises a few challenges that advocates of same-sex marriage need to consider carefully.

And I'm usually not a fan of citing evidence, but one conspicuous absence in this whole debate is any evidence that children growing up in same-sex marriage turn out to be well-balanced individuals. Intuitively I can't see any reason why this shouldn't be the case but, given for example the "initial indications" that a lot of juvenile offenders come from fatherless families it does give pause for thought.

I suppose I would say that I don't believe any legitimate connection can be drawn between the mental health of a child and the biological sex of their parents. The situation is far more complex, and needs to take into account the way the child is treated, whether they feel loved, and to what extent the parents project their own emotional needs onto the child (which as we have seen happens in pretty much all families). In any case, in most of the lesbian and gay couples I've known, one of the partners tends to take on a more "masculine" role and one a more "feminine". So in some sense I think there's evidence to suggest that same-sex couples do provide an effective male-female balance, or a mum and a dad experience - and this ties into debates on gender being distinct from biological sex, or of gender existing through performance, which are quite mainstream these days.

[cont]

And then there's the notion that the children born into same sex relationships probably wouldn't have been born at all were it not for the relationship and the opportunity it presents to give birth to and raise a child. Could it ever be fair to say that we should deny these as-yet unborn children the chance at life, the chance to be born into a family that wants and is ready to accept them, just because we're worried that they might grow up unhappy? If life is sacred, then shouldn't it be given every chance to flourish? Is an ok life, in a developed society, where the vast majority of us live in luxury unimaginable 200 years ago, better than no life at all? And what of the kids who can't live with their parents and instead get bounced from short-term foster carer to short-term foster carer due to lack of availability of foster carers. Wouldn't it be better to let them live in a stable, loving, same-sex family?

I think the disquiet surrounding this issue indicates that advocates of same-sex marriage do have a little more work to do to convince the people that matter that it should go ahead, because I for one don't yet know how to frame an argument that would convince someone like David van Gend to come onboard. All I know is that I'm glad that movements are being made in the direction that will eventually allow us to make those arguments.

And I also know that I think it's wonderful that Penny Wong and her partner are having a child, and I think they'll make great parents.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12541#216759

Ammonite, again, "repeat the lie until it becomes the truth" Vladimir Ilyich Lenin.

Soviet era proverb, "the present we know, we are doing it now, the future we know, we are building it now, only the past keeps changing"

Your "conversation" is one of the worst i have ever encountered, more Loony Left Alleged academics droning on with their closet communist re-named rhetoric.

Left wing politics never changes, in principle, only the labels are updated with the latest Spinganda, Weasel words.

Reds in "BEDS".

Bovine
Excrement
Distribution
Services

So a couple of communists find a couple of tiny examples of something other than monogamy, in a couple of far flung corners of the world out of the rest of humanity & its multi millenia history of heterosexual, monogamous, marriage for life & this somehow justifies further experimentation with childrens lives, when we already have well documented, scientifically proven evidence to the contrary.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12541#216760

McReal, many of those middle aged homosexuals of yours who experiment with GLBT lifestyle after an unhappy marriage breaks up, often find abnormal behaviour also unsatisfying & end up even more mentally ill as a result.

i have personally seen men commit suicide after such mistakes, caused by people like you.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12541#216764

Cactus, could not possibly be more wrong, it does matter. One minute the communists use the human rights of the child to justify breaking up heterosexual families, next they are denying the human rights of the child to justify throwing them into homosexual marriages without access to both biological parents.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12541#216769

vanna, correct, but even more so, several generations ago our nuclear families existed inside extended families http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Waltons this was also destroyed by closet communist social engineers, earlier in history than the mid 1960's.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12541#216774

Ho Hum, perhaps you prefer "polymorphous perversity" which is the cause of all child abuse & neglect today.

The toxic circle will be broken when every member/supporter of the RED/green, getup, GAYLP/alp, Socialist Alliance is in a labour camp for life.

"True, but what happens if the quality is not there?

Will this be hidden?"

The same that happens now in many families whether conventional, single parent or any other combination you can think of.

Why would it be any different in a single gender family. I suggest, having some knowledge of our society, those in single gender families will be under greater scrutiny and judged by higher standards than the norm.

If you are worried about child abuse being hidden, look to the wealthier families for this.

It is happening here in many comments.

Question to Foremersnag, Vanna and Philo, being hetrosexual males how would you respond if one of your children was Gay. This is assuming that you have children of course!!

Sam "the "initial indications" that a lot of juvenile offenders come from fatherless families"

First up the proviso that I don't recall seeing clear evidence that is the case but I have a similar view.

Clearly plenty of other indicators that kid's in single parent families face higher rates of harm than kid's in two parent families.

I suspect that has a lot more to do with the dynamics of single parenting and the circumstances that lead to them being in a fatherless family (family separation) than about the gender mix of the parents.

Most of what's being compared against is not particularly fatherless families but single parent or blended families. Both generally involve family separation and a variety of other issues which impact on kids.

As a single dad I have some bias towards the role of dads in kids lives, I've dealt with the system that used to expect separated and divorced dads to do every second weekend and otherwise focus on paying child support.

I keep getting the impression that way this issue is being played by the anti-gay marriage crowd has a lot of similarities to the spin and dodgy arguments in the vein of "think of the children" used by the maternal bias crowd. It's relying on stereotypes and twisting perceptions rather than a case that relates to most peoples lives.

There has been some evidence about outcomes for kid's raised with same sex parents. I've not followed through to get an idea how real that work is (is it advocacy research or has it come from credible researchers trying to get to the truth?)

I've not seen any credible evidence to suggest that outcomes for kid's with two loving parents of the same gender are any worse than for kid's with parents in a loving heterosexual relationship.

The only obvious risk is attacks by homophobes (and whatever you call those who hate but are not scared).

R0bert

.
Re " .. evidence that children growing up in same-sex marriage turn out to be well-balanced individuals."
Sam Jandwich, Wednesday, 31 August 2011 4:09:07 PM

See here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_parenting#Children.E2.80.99s_outcomes

here - http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/514477

and here - http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1994480,00.html
,

Posted by McReal, Wednesday, 31 August 2011 9:16:17 AM
" ... Utter, Utter Rubbish, Philo. ... "

Well said.

In my opinion *Philo et al* are delusional fools who believes in faerie tales. In fact, I so despise people like them that I am not at liberty to express how I would deal with them.

..

Posted by Ho Hum, Wednesday, 31 August 2011 11:14:47 AM

" ... This entire social and cultural game of antisexual, "spirit against flesh" education is so monstrous, so opposed to incarnate happiness and True human responsibility, that it must be considered THE primary social and philosophical issue of our time. Indeed it is the primary cause of all of our seemingly intractable cultural problems, including world-wide terrorism and ecological destruction ... "

Yes, to look at history we see in this country the filthy muddle headed churchies at work oppressing and stealing babies from the Original Australians and also even as late as the 70's from UnWed mothers.

..

I suspect they did it for Jesus though.

HaHa

What a sick joke!

But our *Chinese Trading Partners* have some interesting and productive techniques for dealing with this sort of filth.

..

The bottom line is this. People are naturally free to *Love* whomsoever they choose and filthy muggle headed christians or otherwise who wish others to confirm to their faerie tale beliefs and rules are best dealt with by corporal punishment.

I will believe that Christian lobbyists are sincere in their opposition to gay marriage 'for the sake of the children' when they also start agitating for the dissolution of childless marriages, the banning of divorce, and the imposition of parenting licences to ensure that the only people allowed to have children are those capable of caring for them. All of which would have far more impact on the welfare of children across the country than the legalisation of gay marriage.

Till then, I'm afraid, it just looks like homophobia to me.

Jon J,
Obviously you have a phobia to the truth. Marriage is the act of the male sperm uniting with the female ovum. It is a union of a man and a woman, full stop.. That some couples are infertile or have diffuculty conceiving or defer natural fertility you would dissolve their marriages. Then you have the hide to say ban divorce. You are truly confused and unintelligent.

The likes of DreamOn add nothing to your cause he cannot debate but rather threatens violence and unintelligent name calling.
He said, "I so despise people like them that I am not at liberty to express how I would deal with them."

I trust he never has the care of children; he is nothing more than a bully. Obviously he was poorly trained by his father if he had one; typical of the London Rioters.

Interesting headline 'a DAD does matter to a child'- what about a 'mum'?

It is sad that somebody supposedly in the medical profession is so blatantly an ultra-conservative (borderline archaic) religious nutjob.

King Hazza,
Mums are important, but two mums cannot replace a father in a young girls life. There was a 17 girl living next door brought up by two mums, father left when she was an infant. She became the local prostitute for any of the boys in her class at school. When she finished school her Mums left for NZ and she was always in trouble with the Police for driving her mother's car unregistered and unlicenced. She had no guidance nor answerable to a father.

And how do you know I am not already a father you bigotted old fool?

Did your dead god tell you perhaps, who was born a man, died a man and has long since rotted and putrified in the earth?

..

Bully? Actually, it is filth like you who contributed to the rise of the Nazis and the attempted extermination of all gay and lesbian people (and I note others have well connected the preaching of the likes of *Boazy* to the recent massacres in Norway.)

It is not *Gay & Lesbian* who are oppressing or preaching discrimination and hatred, or attempting to prescribe limits on *Love,* but rather filth like you and your kind.

..

Bully? No, think more *Satanic Mass Philo*

..

A vote for the red or blue of the genocidal crown is a vote for child abuse and ongoing entrenched economic disadvantage for some. My sympathies are with the rioters.

..

I am pleased that the High Court had the mechanisms within their grasp to prevent that carrot headed scrubber and the rest of the filth in Canberra from perpetrating further crimes against the unaccompanied minors.

Philo as an acclaimed evangelist, why did you not offer support to your neighbour!

McReal

Thanks for the links, and once again.....Gods a NO SHOW:)

Well what was quite an interesting read I must say....lol...I still haven't stopped laughing....

Cactus

Obviously antagonists here by their language and attitude make them unfit as parents.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12541#216775

vanna, the closet communists HAVE learned from the past, what they, the feMANazis & the GLBT types have been doing for half a century now is deliberate, premeditated, failure training.

They know for a fact that children have, are, will be neglected & abused. The more dysfunctional our society/culture becomes, the sooner capitalism fails, the sooner the Maoists can take over.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12541#216779

briar rose, GLBT groups were screaming for more "mental health" funds to be directed away from general public services like "beyond blue" towards the GLBT community because of their infinately higher mental illness & suicide rates.

Why put children into a train that you know in advance is heading towards a "damaged" track & a certain derailment crash?

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12541#216780

Kenny, because an earlier generation of "social engineers" was scheming to destroy the extended family.

"united we stand, divided we fall"

Failure planning, often leads to deliberate, premeditated failure, funny that.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12541#216782

Kipp, i have seen your point, "2 wrongs DO make a right". There is just another MORE than half of the truth you left out, all the children of good christians who had a wonderful childhood.

One of us "EVIL" christians even dared to admit to having a wonderful childhood.

Why do you closet communists hate children so much?

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12541#216783

vanna, so true.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12541#216787

Philo, correct again.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12541#216789

Flo, more of the "2 wrongs make a wrong" argument.

In those earlier times parental death was roughly 50/50, widows were encouraged to socialise with each other, marry each other, the original "blended family" & what did it produce? Fairy tales like cinderella, the original parable about DV, which shows the truth, about women being more likely to do it than men.

Whats that I here' its god' rumbling down with floods and bolts of lightening?......NO! its just Snag and philo showing their true characteristics of peace and good will.

Now Ned Flanders does his block here, all in the name of good intentions.

It would seem Gays have no rights in the eyes of the LAW...lol.....and didn't big J take a young boy into his bed to teach him the ways of the Lord? Well that's what the bible says:)

http://tinyurl.com/3ezuzr5

Are normal people that annoying?

or is it just the Devil coming out?

Now Now little GOD dudes, don't have a cow:)

Cactus

>> ""Marriage is the act of the male sperm uniting with the female ovum.""

Posted by Philo, Thursday, 1 September 2011 10:10:31 AM

That's conception, Philo.

Flo,
There is considerable evidence of data already being hidden about homosexuality, for political purposes.

For example, data about domestic violence in homosexual relationships is not usually mentioned, while people such as feminists scream out data about domestic violence in heterosexual relationships at every opportunity, and of course the male is always the perpetrator.

Interesting that several studies have found domestic violence in lesbian relationships is about 50%, something I have never heard mentioned by feminists or homosexuals.

The following article is interesting: -

Domestic Violence in Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Relationships

http://www.lambda.org/DV_background.htm

Robert,

In regards to homophobia, I would think there is a much more likely case for heterophobia.

There are almost no positive remarks said by homosexuals about heterosexuals.

Negative, discriminatory and bigoted remarks about heterosexuals, and in particular heterosexual males, are universal in feminism.

Negative, discriminatory and bigoted remarks about heterosexuals, and in particular heterosexual males, are also very common amongst academics.

So I would think there is a much more solid case for wide spread heterophobia in our society.

vanna, "There are almost no positive remarks said by homosexuals about heterosexuals."

I doubt that's any more true than a generalised statement about any other group saying positive things about heterosexuals.

If it was try it would be worth asking yourself if you like being judged because you rarely (if ever) make positive remarks about women?
If it was true perhaps a lot less attacks on homosexuals might reduce some of the causes.

It's yet another attempt to try and justify discrimination that can't be justified.

No heterosexual looses if homosexuals are allowed to marry, in fact the more freedom from vilification and discrimination that homosexuals face the better off heterosexuals are. It lessens the chances of finding that our spouse is someone who's been trying to be heterosexual and not having it work. It lessens the chance that someone close to us may have to go through the trauma of abuse and vilification that some teenagers still face.

Other than reducing opportunity for some to take out their own issues on others lives equal rights for homosexuals takes nothing from us. If some ones god really has an issue with it let their god deal with it directly, in the meantime everyone else should leave others lives alone.

R0bert

vanna....are you giving online counseling services now:) The fact is, sexual preference has nothing to do with domestic violence. Quite a moot point, don't you think? Humans by nature' regardless of religion, colour or creed will act out in what ever environment, given the right circumstances and you know what Iam talking about.

Religion its self has quite a bit to answer for, so don't get me started:) small world isn't:)

Humans are Humans in what ever context, and to get personal on any level concerning homosexual violence or other wise, can cost those dearly in comparison with the focus not being aimed at any one, but more singling out what is one or the other in disagreeing with the contexts of reasoning.

A very poor attempted assassination of the subject matter, which you have failed to prove anything which sades one way or the other of who/which heterosexuals or homosexuals behaviorals, are of no side-able or winnable point....The man-bear-pig in is all of us, nice try.

In other words, don't waste readers time:) with factors or fact-less, which in this case.

Cactus

Robert,
An example would be the number of people publicly congratulating a certain lesbian couple recently when one got pregnant. Basically they were congratulating a child being conceived in a test tube, (which is a very worrying thing if you do some research as to where IVF is heading).

However, I have heard of no one congratulating a heterosexual politician if his wife became pregnant naturally.

We now live in a highly feminist, anti-male, and increasingly anti-heterosexual society.

"We now live in a highly feminist, anti-male, and increasingly anti-heterosexual society."

What a load of rubbish. Anti male, if anything, this time period is the fairest its been, some may disagree, however its only my opinion.

"A dad does matter to a child, whether gay couples like it or not"

The answer has already been told. With-in the social structures of this well oiled human-machine, as the child grows into it, he or she picks a path of their own choices and will experiment given to their own time and nothing/no-one is pressuring anybody in thinking anything that nature hasn't all ready given to each and every individual, and that's the way it is.

If god made all, well you religious people, when you pass on, can front him about the so-called perfect world, which is full of mistakes that some ignorant believers seem to have a problem with.

The perfect creator....of all.....yeah right:)

The big picture is........your god made everything, and when you get the chance to ask him, can you please come back and tell the rest of us what the hell when wrong.

Like I always say, have a nice day:)

Cactus.

So, when two homosexual men adopt,

The child can benefit from having *two* dads.

Then again, children throughout history have benefited from having loving, caring and responsible widowed parents, aunts and Uncles, grandparents, godparents, step parents, step-step-parents, adopted parents, foster parents, avuncular family friends and *any number* of people whose relationship to natural parents is tenuous, dubious, "questionable", purely or "merely" legal, and the child has a broader and occasionally more robust view of reality.

enforcing "optimality" is often indulged in by those with a viciously narrow definition of "optimal".

Rusty

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12541#216883

Rusty Catheter, i answered that rubbish of yours earlier, in the olden days parental death was roughly 50/50 male/female, widows were encouraged to cry on each others shoulders, socialise with each other, marry each other.

"Repeat the lie until it becomes the truth" Vladimir Ilyich Lenin.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12541#216878

Cactus, what is so good about the gospels acording to Trotsky, Marx, Lenin & Mao? why are you so pure for deifying lucifer, satan & beelzebub?

like your heroes say "polymorphous perversity".

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12541#216872

RObert, i have never seen vanna or any other member of the AFL.

Anti
FeMANazi/FauxMANista
League

Make any derogatory comments about ALL women ever, we have made derogatory comments as you also have, about radical, extreme, femanazis.

http://www.rense.com/general32/americ.htm read all of it but pay particular attention to #26 & #40.

if a teenager is vilified for making a mistake &/or committing a crime, should we punish the vilifier or the "fagin" character who deliberately corrupted the child with filth & perversion &/or trained it to fail &/or led it astray.

In reality, there is a Church in Australia that "marries" gay and lesbian people.

It is Australia's first independently registered denomination.

For legal reasons, it is a ceremony that is called the "Covenant of Love" and obviously is not recognised by the State as a "legal marriage" however, from a Spiritual (whatever that means) and religious perspective, it most certainly is.

..

They are known to me personally and were very caring and compassionate of me during a dark period of my life, but even though they are a type of "Christian" they are so very different from mainstream Christianity that they really deserve to be considered entirely differently i.m.o.

..

Blanche Dalpuget, Bob Hawkes current partner I believe, used to be a member of their Church.

..

My biological father is a psychologically abusive individual and suffice to say he is lucky to still draw breath. In fact, whilst I will spare readers the details, the only reason that he does is because I love my wife and daughter more than I despise him.

..

Still, revenge indeed is a dish best served cold. HaHa ;-)

..

Of course, as for *Philo* the frothing at the mouth fanatic, like some of the other bible bashing fruit cakes in this place who are obsessed with getting their own way and inflicting it upon vulnerable others regardless of the consequences, if he came calling to steal my child on the basis that like the Stolen Generations and UnWed mothers, I am unworthy in the eyes of their pathetic god concept to be a parent, well ...

as said, the rules are such as to limit the fullness of my expression.

;-)

Snag

Cactus, what is so good about the gospels according to Trotsky, Marx, Lenin & Mao? why are you so pure for deifying Lucifer, Satan & Beelzebub?

like your heroes say "polymorphous perversity". Well for starters none of them are my heroes, however I did find out what "polymorphous perversity" is and I fail to the connection. Maybe you could explain in a little more detail.

However I did find out that Fraud made had his own definition. My own sexuality if that's what your interested in, sorry to disappoint you if your gay, but Iam just the run of the mill heterosexual:) and father of four children:) I hope its not disappointing for you...lol
In order to understand the shift that Dawson foresaw and that ultimately took place, it is necessary to look back to 1909, when Sigmund Freud released his understanding of human sexuality. Trying to understand something as powerful as sex, Freud turned to what he called the “infantile” stage of human development, and identified the leading characteristic of infantile sexuality as polymorphous perversity.

Freud explained: “What makes an infant characteristically different from every other stage of human life is that the child is polymorphously perverse, is ready to demonstrate any kind of sexual behavior, with any kind of pleasure, without any kind of restraint.” He then explained how “civilization” emerges only after this innate, polymorphous perversity is restrained by psychological repression, social form, and custom.

Such restraint, Freud felt, was inevitable and indeed necessary, for procreation is necessary for the continuation of the race, and therefore heterosexual coupling was absolutely essential for civilization itself. So the world with same sex couples still I think, wont make any difference at all.

My sister on the other hand is very much gay and proud of it, and like most normal people Mr Snag, its only embittered small-minded twats that cry "Oh dear, we cant have that"

Like I always say, have a nice:)

Cactus:

What? No more capital thoughts on the subject matter? and what I was going to add, even with the gov at max, the wheels keep falling off.....and the people must not know:) I understand:) If I can be...well...understanding on all what makes the perfect human.....I think the bad publicity of the left. Anyway....try and think as a whole, and not a bunch of individuals out for the one thing.....and that's you:)

Con or not! This is your would, and you! yes you.....keep Australian dumb for your own greed and who gives a f..k....and politics today in Australia......its greed....and nothing else.

Trust me, this world belongs to all.......and all will bite who don't believe in Brilliance.

Now back to your world:)

Now on finishing the subject matter, our numbers on what Freud thoughts were as what we all thought.....6.5 plus billions of people and same sex couples which are miniscule in comparison, makes those against free love, nothing more than a human thought with-out any worry to the race what so ever.

So.......21 thinking....I don't think so:) did I say, their going to squeeze everything out of this, and your it.lol. you....I just cant say it to them.....look you online members do it....I just cant.

One day, Iam going to let it rip:) and tell those that are cowards to the point of all this.

The clock is ticking......and you think you have all the time in the world.:) cool. Thats like saying some know whats being said......Harvey bay people, I just love them:)...lol....and its good your paying attention;)

Good luck with it:) at the end of this year, going back to where the not normal come from:)

lol

All the best.

Cactus:)