Here we go again! If you really believe that children are central to the concept of marriage then you should be opposing marriages between people who are sterile, or too old to have children, shouldn't you? -- and since these are much more common than gay unions, shouldn't you be devoting a much larger part of your efforts to protesting and voting against them? Oh, and shouldn't you be opposing divorce laws and trying to ensure that people stay together forever 'for the children', regardless of how toxic and hateful their relationship is?

You don't give a religious affiliation (or anything else) in your biography, but you don't need to -- I can guess. Only faith-heads are so practiced at ignoring the implications of their claims.

Blaise, you are absolutely right on this issue.

The key question here is, very simply: why have societies and governments back through to ancient times always respected and elevated the idea of marriage above other types of relationships?

Why is marriage more special than other types of relationships?

You simply cannot answer that question without considering the societal benefits of children being raised in long-terms, committed relationships by a mum and dad. By elevating the institution of marriage above other types of relationships, this outcome for children is supported and indeed encouraged.

Conversely, if marriage is just about any two people committing in a relationship, society will implicitly see absolutely nothing special at all in a man and a woman committing for life to create a good environment for children. It will see this as just 'one type of marrriage' or 'one type of relationship'.

Finally, the opinions held by both sides on this issue should be respected and debated in a civilised manner. Threatening people on the basis of religion is just as puerile and ugly as threatening people on the basis of race, ethnicity, environmental views or other personal characteristics.

In this context, we should all pause and stop and think for a minute: have societies really got this one wrong for centuries? Have a bunch of smart young people in 2011 really finally figured out that we had marriage all wrong?

The point is that over time, societies have come and gone. Insitutions and ideology have risen and fallen. Elections have been won and lost. Through the course of all this conflict, many, many smarter people than us have lived and died. So let's consider that through all these years, marriage has continuted to be protected and elevated.

So before we radically redefine it, let's stop and ask the question again: why have societies and governments back through to ancient times always respected and elevated the idea of marriage above other types of relationships?

There is a very large oversight in the discussion about gay marriage. The Marriage Act is used frequently in legislation when it decides on taxation laws, property rights, eligibility for social welfare and many other areas which relate to individual rights. It is not just about procreation protection or who gets what in divorces.

A thorough reading of the Act left me with the conclusion that the drafters seem to think in terms of marriage being an economic unit and a financial arrangement far more than its usefulness to proclaim true love or even a haven or otherwise for Children.

To that extent, the rights available in the marriage act are thus something that we as individuals have available to us. Gay couples that argue against civil union legislation are equally missing the point or perhaps just dont realise what it is they are protesting for since civil union legislation, as far as I have seen anyway, offers exactly what they want.

If you want romance, go to a florist!

The author is exactly on the point of what marriage is.

Even before discussions of same sex marriage there were many children who were raised by two non-biological parents via adoption or via IVF. Does anyone doubt these children were raised by and large by two people who loved them despite the fact there was no biological link.

Children do best in stable relationships which is what the institution of marriage offers (in theory if not always in practice). There is no reason to think that same-gender marriage won't also provide stability, no more than the 40-50% divorce rate in heterosexual unions.

Many heterosexual people marry and have no children.

Societies do change and evolve, so do the institutions that make up those societies.

Blaise it is interesting that you have not identified where your affilliations are.
This throws a very much different light on your essay.

www.menzieshouse.com.au/blaise-joseph/

www.menzieshouse.com.au/editors-html

Since a core problem in our society is an increasing population I think it best to modify institutions that are based on procreation to give procreation a lesser priority.

I favour redefining marriage so that it is a commitment between individuals regardless of the sex, the reproductive capacity and desire for reproduction of those individuals.

I am involved in a stable heterosexual marriage and am the product of a very tumultuous heterosexual marriage. As a child I wished many times that my parents would get divorced so I could get away from both of them. I question the idea that heterosexual marriage is the best way to raise children. I don't think it was in my case.

I've been waiting patiently for someone to explain clearly why same-sex marriage is wrong... I'm still waiting.

What about heterosexual couples who marry with no intention of ever having children? What about gay/lesbian couples who want to marry without any intention of ever raising children?

I think AJinDarwin is right when he/she says marriage is understood as "an economic unit and a financial arrangement far more than its usefulness to proclaim true love or even a haven or otherwise for Children".

I ask again, gay marriage: why not? What are you afraid of?

Blaise writes: "Society departing from the favourable norm in this way would adversely impact children, forcing the state to have a larger role in their welfare, such as in education and health."

Jees, Blaise, what planet are you living on? This is already happening, but it has nothing to do with gay couples. The institution of marriage means nothing anymore - no-fault divorce, endless permutations of 'blended families', single parents in abundance (and, in many cases, incentivised by the social welfare system to seek out that status) - I could go on.

Furthermore, most straight couples of MY Generation (X) don't bother to get married, even when they procreate, because de factos couples receive everything married couples do. So why bother?

When you break it down, the simple fact is this. The government controls a status for relationships between two people that is currently discriminatory towards same-sex couples. Any meaning that status had with respect to children has been completely severed by both technology and other developments in the law. So maintaining that discrimination on the basis of the children question is frankly ridiculous.

Thank god you're almost alone in your generation, Blaise - you deserve to be.

It is good to see that you are also standing up to the groupthink. A clear and reasoned article on marriage, thank you.

To Kipp. Blaise presents a reasoned thoughtful essay. It's pleasing to hear from her generation. I don't agree with her conclusions. Nor do I agree that her lack of presentation of "affiliations" does anything whatsoever to diminish her aricle's content.

"It would change the institution of marriage from being centred around the production and well-being of children to being based on the self-fulfilment of adults."

With this statement, I think you've nailed it like no one else. I sense deep selfishness within the gay community. When was the last time you heard of gay groups doing anything charitable or caring for anyone but themselves? All gay groups are concerned with is themselves. Media will put the couples with kids on the front page but that is not the norm. The norm is very selfish, self-centered people focused only on what they perceive that they are being denied.

".. the gay marriage lobby ... has very effective talking points: that marriage currently discriminates against gays, denying them their individual rights to express their love ... "

This is a mis-representation; a strawman fallacy. No-one is claiming anything around the marriage debate is denying individuals' ability or rights to express love.

No-one is saying "marriage" discriminates against gays.

" .. that two people of the same sex marrying each other doesn't affect anyone else." is just an appeal to self-centredness on the part of those who feel the need to be affected.

Bill Shorten, you do realise and acknowledge what the divorce rate is? You do realise 'appeal to tradition' might not be relevant to changing society?
.

Those who are under the misconception that personal attacks are somehow valid and reasonable arguments need to seriously look within themselves.
Like wait500, I too think it was nailed with the comment "It would change the institution of marriage from being centred around the production and well-being of children to being based on the self-fulfilment of adults."

Love isn’t criteria for marriage. Marriage isn’t validated by love – it’s validated by the cold and unromantic process of filing a signed document at the Births, Deaths, and Marriages office. The couple may even attest to their greatest, heartfelt loathing for the person they are marrying in their vows, and this still won’t make the marriage any less valid.

Regarding your plea to naturalism via comparison of the heterosexual and homosexual union, it’s true that in the natural world homosexual intercourse doesn’t produce offspring. But humans stopped living in the natural world when they created fire, wore clothes, built huts, sowed crops, domesticated animals, invented written language, sailed ships, flew aeroplanes – all the way to expressed opinion via a world-wide network.
Nature hasn’t dictated who we are since before the concept of marriage – our species is unique in that it effectively dictates to nature who we are. So why should the raw nature of our own organism dictate marriage policy? It’s only natural to die from severe trauma to our vital organs – but no one is too proud to accept invasive surgery rather than let our own body’s natural healing capabilities fail us.

You say:

“The practical consequences of gay marriage for children and society would be long-term but still very concerning... It would obscure the value of opposite-sex parenting as an ideal...”

The Australian Psychological Society says its review Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) Parented Families:

“research indicates that parenting practices and children’s outcomes in families parented by lesbian and gay parents are likely to be at least as favourable as those in families of heterosexual parents, despite the reality that considerable legal discrimination and inequity remain significant challenges for these families”

The only disadvantage children of same-sex parents experiences is the discrimination that their parents face.

Carol83 Blaise (male) by not itdentifying his affiliations, as a supporter and contributor to a political right wing group, dilutes his argument.

"marriage" relationships have always been determined and shaped by economics and the economics of survival.
Whenever the prevailing system of economics has changed then the patterns of inter-personal relationships have always changed too - INEVITABLY.

To my mind one of the best examinations of how this has always been so is given by James Alison via this talk, and his work altogether.

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/encounter/stories/2010/3029756.htm

Plus this vexed topic is also very much about how children have been treated.

Two seminal works on this VERY important topic are:
Philippe Aries via Centuries of Childhood
Lloyd deMause via a History of Childhood - and his psycho-history project too.

Altogether both authors point out that the history of childhood has always been essentially a history of child abuse.Mostly of course due to the terrible struggle just to survive.

I think Blaise should actually read the report he's cited in his piece, Parkinson himself says it has nothing to do with same-sex couples who raise children.

http://www.starobserver.com.au/news/2011/09/14/parkinson-report-not-about-gay-parents/6159

Thanks Blaise - great article, guaranteed to promote a bit of healthy banter.

What I like about the article is that it isn't written to sway the firm and distorted views of gay-marriage lobbyists (it just infuriates them... ha). Rather it is written for the vast majority of young people in Australia who really don't know much about this issue and don't have any strong reasons to support either side of the debate. By attacking the groupthink attitude as a weak basis for supporting the re-definition of 'marriage' you have influenced any fence-sitters to consider what they actually believe, how this belief has been formed (by media, education, or the cop-out groupthink mentality) and most importantly how much more there is to know about the issue itself and the short and long term ramifications of making any changes to the current working definition.

I don't think all of gen 'Y' is for gay marriage. More likely they just don't care...

oh dear another I'm doing it for the kids post.
In this day and age what has marriage got to do with kids?

And as other have pointed out. The fact that my wife and I have no intention to have kids means in your eye at tleast the our church marriage is some how not a real marriage.

Can you see what you've done there...you don't like it and that's where you should have left it. you don't want to get married to a guy then don't, but why stop others

Blaise,

I am sorry but you are missing the point. The government provides for a contractual agreement between 2 people, presently only available to "a man and a woman", who live as a unit and are considered next of kin. The name of this contract is "Marriage Licence" or Marriage for short.

This contract infers various responsibilities, rights and privileges on those that have it. Various bodies and organisations will only recognise this contract when considering the relationship between two people. I will give you an example, one partner of a same sex relationship is critically ill the other is denied access to be beside the bed of the one he or she loves and has lived with for many years, because, there is no legal proof of kinship, only immediate family are allowed, not a partner of 35 years!

There are many legal issues with the status qua as it allows discrimination on the basis of sex. You seem to state that discrimination is a good thing as it proves one type of relationship, in your mind, is superior to any other. So answer me this Blaise. Why do 50% of Marriages fail, robbing the children of one of their biological parents. Why are there so many single never married parents where children do not ever have 2 parents. What is wrong with 2 parents just because they are the same sex isn't that better than one parent?

The ability to produce children has no bearing on the ability to care and nurture them.

Blaise and others,
Marriage has its roots in some very unseemly behavior, including but not limited to ritual rape, kidnapping, control of estate illegal for females, dowry as income, enforced slavery.

Marriage has nothing to do with progeny, as progeny can occur before marriage, or not at all. Marriage has more to do with legal/societal status, then with any notions of Love.

Any call for notions of Marriage to meet our contemporary needs should take precedence over romantic revisionist notions of what marriage has apparently meant in the past.

The term itself is meaningless, but the bigotry and hate that follow this argument are not. This is just another chance for us as a "first world" country, to decide how we define ourselves and the individuals that make our society. Should we define ourselves using systems and words that hold an outdated and out grown notion of society that no longer fits?
Given our understanding of the effects of globalisation, and the commercial sectors fetish for unsustainable growth, i hardly think that population growth or the potential for, should be seen as a positive when we train our thoughts onto such matters as the coupling of peoples.

TL:DR? dont tie outdated modes of thought and classification into what is essentially a contemporary conversation.

I think Gen Y seem so favourable towards ss marriage because they've seen what the baby boomers and Gen X have done to the institution and think, well, it can't get any worse!

But, I tend to agree with the authour - two Dads don't equal a Mum

'Carol83 Blaise (male) by not itdentifying his affiliations, as a supporter and contributor to a political right wing group, dilutes his argument.'

Only if you decide that people who are members of a political right wing group should always be ignored. Come to think of it...

The argument stands and lives and dies on its merits. That you wish to be able to use your prejudice while reading it says a lot more about you.

Play the ball.

I'm so sick of the whole argument. As a de-facto parent living with the mother of my children, I am more concerned the government has married me off via de-facto law, when I have made no explicit contract with my partner.

The government should totally step away from marriage altogether, and let individual churches recognise same sex marriage if they so wish, or not as the case will probably be.

Existing law that has designated me as married in the eyes of the government can then be applied to all romantic relationships the government has decided are married. It does it already, so by definition the idea of official marriage is already redundant.

It's actually kind of sad that I created this account solely to post a response. I wouldn't have, but the slew of posts here that praise the OP are twats.

I am a law student nearing the end of my degree. Author, your understanding of what the marriage act/marriage itself means and what it's based on (insofar as how you've phrased this post) screams pure ignorance. Marriage law has, historically, been centered on rights (property, assets, legal protections etc). Not on love, not on children.

From a purely legal perspective, there is no way I can morally justify the idea that two people who are consenting, autonomous adults in a country that claims to be "free" can be denied basic rights... purely on the basis of them having the same reproductive organs. That is literally what it boils down to. In a society where we're really not concerned with "propegating the human race" (and actually suffer from overpopulation) and childless marriages are very common, denying two people civil rights because they both have penises is actually as insane as denying two people marrying because they both have red hair or because they come from two different races.

Oh wait. I'm sorry, did the latter example exist? Wait, we call people in support of that racists now?

The idea of an Aborigine and a white Australian marrying was seen as utterly reprehensible. Yes, it's not the same, gay isn't a "race", but the same principles apply: you are born gay. It's not something anyone can change. At the end of the day, everyone in a democratic nation deserves basic legal protections and the right to feel regarded and safe in a country that they pay tax to.

The point is, "tradition" is not always right. Stop appealing to "tradition" as though it is the holy grail of morality. I know it's comfortable, but recognize that the earth being regarded as flat was once "tradition". The seperation of races was "tradition". Treating women as subservient and incapable was "tradition".

Laws evolve as society progresses and it is pure ignorance to think otherwise.

Goodness me, will there ever be a single argument against gay marriage that doesn't distort fact, that doesn't misrepresent research, that doesn't commit numerable logical and historical errors?

The research paper that Blaise uses to substantiate his claim that gay married couples are inferior parents to straight married couples actually has ZERO data to support that conclusion, Blaise completely misrepresents the paper.

The paper doesn't examine homosexual parents - at all. What Blaise did was infer that a broken, divorced heterosexual parent with a new spouse, is an identical family structure to a married homosexual couple.

Which you should immediately realise the faulty reasoning. If not:

Blaise took the emotional and psychological damage that divorce inflicts on a child, and concluded that that damage is also inflicted on a married, whole, committed family if the parents happen to be of the same gender.

What do the actual facts say about households with same-sex parents? Because they do exist, we don't have to rely on distorting and misrepresenting divorce statistics like Blaise has done.

The actual research on same-sex parenting uniformly concludes that children reared by married, committed same-sex parents do not incur any disadvantages to their wellbeing, health or development. In fact, in one study, children raised by lesbian couples actually faired BETTER (in terms of social responsibility and EQ).

There are zero.. absolutely zero... scientific reasons to oppose gay marriage. The fact that in 100% of cases bigots have to distort fact to try and justify excluding homosexuals from marriage.... Is simple proof there is no rational argument to oppose it.

The example of not being considered next of kin at hospital bed is a falsehood. If the patient has listed the person as next of kin then they have every right to be contacted and be present.

That marriage is about economics and property is because a pregnant wife and new mum who is not free to work has need of a responsible carer and naturally it is the father of the child who the law makes responsible.

Gay lobbiests of same sex marriage grossly distort fact, and wish to change its definition, merely to define an emotional attachment. Marriage is an exclusive and biological (evolved) designed union between a man and a woman. It is never fertile sperm being pushed into anal feaces, or a viobrator being inserted. Fact only a man and a woman can produce human species in their likness. Fact is until two men can give birth to their child evolution will discriminate against them. That is what marriage is, it will never be anything else.

Jon J and Kipp - why should it matter what the authors affiliations are? I don't know Blaise Joseph from a bar of soap but it seems that he can present a logical argument that is not based on any religious or political affiliation. Just logic and reasoning. This is an opinion piece after all, and he clearly states the reason for his opinion.

From both of your comments, it seems like there is discrimination of another kind going on here - if anyone should be "religious" or "conservative", they are not allowed to express an opinion. Blaise has not identified himself as either - and yet, because he opposes the "politically correct" view, he is shouted down.

Examine yourselves and your behaviour. You should be ashamed of your treatment of this young man.

"The example of not being considered next of kin at hospital bed is a falsehood. If the patient has listed the person as next of kin then they have every right to be contacted and be present.

That marriage is about economics and property is because a pregnant wife and new mum who is not free to work has need of a responsible carer and naturally it is the father of the child who the law makes responsible.

Gay lobbiests of same sex marriage grossly distort fact, and wish to change its definition, merely to define an emotional attachment. Marriage is an exclusive and biological (evolved) designed union between a man and a woman. It is never fertile sperm being pushed into anal feaces, or a viobrator being inserted. Fact only a man and a woman can produce human species in their likness. Fact is until two men can give birth to their child evolution will discriminate against them. That is what marriage is, it will never be anything else."

Well said, Philo.

There's a lot of woolly thinking on this topic, even from a lawyer!
To all those who cite the divorce rate, bear in mind that as bad as it is, the rate is worse for de facto relationships, and worse still for same sex relationships. If same sex marriage was ever legalised, there would then be a flood of same sex divorces.
A child learns how to behave from its same sex parent, and how to interact with the opposite sex from its opposite sex parent. That's why it needs both a father and a mother.

To state my belief system as seems to be demanded I am a Darwinist. Sexuality has been evolved to ensure propagation of th species. Homosexualiy is an aberration and abnormal.
Marriage is an institution designed for heterosexuals. The only reason why homosexuals want it is to be accepted that they are normal.
As homosexuality appears to be genetic, not based on lifestyle choice, there is good reason to oppose lesbians bearing chilldren, although one cannot stop it except by refusing aid to conception.
Nevertheless it should be discouraged until we see any long term studies on on the opinions of children brought up by homosexuals. I would hate to be a secondary school student telling his/her classmates that he/she had two"mummies".

Blaise has every right to publish his opinion, the point in question is his essay is near verbatin of the Australian Christian Lobby and the extreme religous funadmentalists, as well as the rightwing political group of whom he belongs, yet he surreptitiously ommitted his social and political connections and beliefs.
Their policy belief being that homosexuals should have no rights,and be treated as second class Australians, even though they are full paying taxpayers financilally supporting hetrosexual families with their taxes.
In other words the extreme rightwing used a vunerable teenager, to exploit their bigotry and indifference to other Australians, and those of you with your antigay attitude,jumped straight in with your own insecure ignorance and bigotry.

First off, the sources in the article are clearly biased from even a quick glance over, there is no neutrality whatsoever and the authors are unabashed in pushing their conservative agenda. Real studies by actual psychologists rather than lawyers, have shown no difference between homosexual and heterosexual parents. Having a PhD in one area doesn't make you an expert in another, this is a cheap tactic often employed by creationists and other disingenuous individuals in an attempt to garner credibility and does nothing but hurt their argument.

Second, the article fails to illustrate any genuine downsides to redefining marriage. To the contrary, considering the legal partnership benefits it affords along with the fact that IVF allows homosexual couples to have children, there is every reason to update the definition of marriage to include a wider spectrum of the loving couples of the 21st century. IVF-born children and those adopted into homosexual families suffer as a result of their parents being denied these benefits, and we have no reason other than archaic tradition which never took medical science into consideration to deny them these rights. It's certainly true that not all homosexual couples have children, but as the author rightly pointed out neither do all heterosexual couples, nor do we have a problem with one parent not being a biological one such as in the case of step-parents. So if we don't have a particular hangup about people getting married without having kids, we should accommodate other loving couples which science has allowed to also potentially become parents, so that all children in these families are treated the same no matter what the genders of their parents may be.

Outrider,
I can't decide whether to take you to task over your Darwinism or your homophobia since both are ancient, out of date and just plain wrong.
There is no evidence of adaptation or evolution among modern Humans or their near cousins the Neanderthals.
Humans were obviously created out of "Whole cloth" at some point so homosexuality must be part of the blueprint.

The Sanctity of Marriage unfortunately has/is fallen/ing by the wayside.
Blaise, I liked your post, but everything cycles throughout the Centuries, it was unheard of for people to just live together outside of marriage, now it appears to be the norm. A marriage in "the sight of God" is a man made Ceremony, and many couples like to write their own Marriage Vows the way they see things., that way they can make their own promises to their betrothed. Trouble is that these days, marriages just don't last very long. But it is the way things are these days. We cannot turn back the clock, but also remember that things will change again, and again etc.etc.......better get into the kitchen and make my Husband of 37 years get my dinner! :)
NSB

While I don't mind most of your argument, but it all falls apart somewhere.

The institution of marriage has already become an institution based on the self-fulfillment of adults.

BECAUSE it is the norm that children be raised in nuclear families (this is not the norm in many cultures but it is in ours), I would say that most of my friends choosing to have children heterosexual relationships do so for their own self-fulfillment. It is those of my friends who are raising children in gay couples or as single people that are doing so for the benefit of the children.

Unfortunately, most straight people I know who are having children haven't given a thought about their children's impact on the world, the world's impact on the children, and merely have children because it's the thing to do once you've graduated from school, got a job, gotten married, and so on.

Our norm has become an unfavourable norm.

This is precisely the reason why marriages should be allowed for all couples regardless of sexuality. Unless we make people question these norms, unless we make them think about what a child means, then we will be stuck with this unfavourable situations of it being only the cretins cloning and feeding.

"If you really believe that children are central to the concept of marriage then you should be opposing marriages between people who are sterile, or too old to have children ..."

Jon J, you obviously have no clue about simple logic. The article argues that children belong ONLY in marriage. What you're rebutting is something he didn't say or even imply, viz., that all marriages must have children. You really need to learn how to distinguish between a premise and a conclusion, between an implication and its converse, before (and hopefully instead of) making such ridiculous comments as quoted above.

"Blaise it is interesting that you have not identified where your affilliations are.
This throws a very much different light on your essay."

Kipp, allow me to throw some light on your comment.

Did you ever learn the art of comprehension? Did you ever learn to critically assess an argument in terms of its logical flow (you know, premises, conclusions, that kind of thing)? Did you ever learn how to debate ad rem? Or, when you hear something you don't like, are you utterly incapable of articulating any kind of rational response, instead resorting to the first ad hominem comment that occurs to you? I admit it's a lot easier to do that kind of thing than actually write something coherent and intelligent but heck, if Blaise can do it, you might be able to pick up the skill yourself. It's worth a try, anyway.

In the meantime, on the assumption that you adhere with absolute consistency to the approach you've taken to Blaise's article, I presume that you reject comments on anything from anyone with any kind of religious or political affiliation, even if they agree with you. Otherwise you'd be an intellectual hypocrite, and I'm sure you're not that.

In jurisdictions where homosexual unions are recognised the numbers of couples formalising their relationships are very low, in the thousands.
I've lost the link I posted in another comment but it gave figures of around 1.5% of Gay and 4% of Lesbian couples taking advantage of new laws in places like Spain and the Netherlands.

This article contains the same flaws as the arguments in favour of gay "marriage".

It assumes, wrongly, that marriage is something the government does to the parties. It isn't, and not even the government has ever claimed that.

It assumes that gays can't marry - exchange explicit commitments for life - now. They can. They just can't get governmental registration of it.

It gives no reason why government should be in the business of registering sexual relationships in the first place, without which the entire discussion is redundant.

And it conjures arbitrary reasons for why some groups rather than others should receive benefits from government on the ground of their sexual relationships.

The article also contains all the usual collectivist fallacies that people use when arguing either for or against gay marriage. Marriage is not something invented by government. Government indeed has had had on overwhelmingly negative effect on the institution. There is not the slightest reason why we should be looking to government, of all people, to tell everyone else what their personal relationships mean.

The author's argument depends on his idea of heterosexual relationships "as a whole". What's that supposed to mean? Heterosexuals don't get married "as a whole" with all other heterosexuals. They get married as two people at time, although Dan Leahy - of New Guinea fame - was sensible enough to marry two sisters at the same time.

‘Laws evolve as society progresses and it is pure ignorance to think otherwise.’
Posted by Irate Goldfish

Quite so. And a deliciously ironic demolition of Goldfish’s own argument.

All social institutions have evolved. Marriage has taken many forms over millennia; it’s adaptable. Under most circumstances -- including our present social environment -- monogamy is favoured by humans, though polygamy’s found a niche now and again. Marriage forms are species-specific, and optimised. What works for ducks doesn’t work for bears; what works in forests fails in desert. Animals and plants have have genetically mediated tendencies, but a fair bit of wiggle room. Marriage, too, can evolve, and will -- albeit very slowly. It’s optimised to our social environment.

And that’s the problem. These days, we don’t have to wait for environment to optimise our genetic tendencies. We can modify genes at will: introduce new ones into wheat for resistance to pests, into cows to make them grow fatter, into viruses so they’ll attack cancer cells. We don’t do these things lightly or haphazardly, of course: the possibility of creating dangerous monstrosities is ever-present. Some people think we shouldn’t modify genes at all. I don’t agree, but I certainly recognise the dangers; wise people don’t just ‘create’ something and turn it loose in the hope it’ll be beneficial.

That’s what Irate Goldfish proposes, though, for the institution of marriage. We needn’t wait for society to ‘progress’ when young lawyers with a ‘rights-based’ agenda can accelerate the evolution of marriage. How long before the court is asked to recognise all nine of a Saudi immigrant’s wives, including the one who’s just turned ten? If two women who love one another can ‘marry’, why not three? Goldfish has the process exactly backwards: evolve first, optimise later. If at all.

I’m not trivialising the issue. Same-sex couples richly deserve the recognition and security which heterosexual couples enjoy. That goal won’t be achieved by subjecting the existing institution of marriage to a forced evolution at the hands of ambitious lawyers eager to set a precedent. There’s a better, safer way. Let’s find it.

Kipp, you really seem hell bent on driving home your message, too. Three posts in less than 24 hours on one article.

How about we take a look in the mirror before we start throwing stones? Who says you aren't driving your own agenda? What makes your agenda more right than Blaise's?

He is speaking on behalf of himself and himself only, and as a 19-year-old voting citizen of Australia I say he has a right to express an opinion as much as you do.

me think that their are alot more people Blaises age than he realises that agrees with his views. Extremist like Getup like to claim to be representative of the youger generation. Normally they are represtantive of the brainwashed crowd who think they know everything but in fact know very little.

...I have a simple view, NOT based on the fallacy daylight saving fades the curtains!: And live in hope, time one day will stand still, as is the nature of the universe.

...Likewise I remain convinced; in that beautiful timeless world of unchange, homosexuality remains forever the crime against humanity that it is!

PS!

"When you have the majority of fish at a site showing up intersex, that's worrisome”. Say scientists studying a phenomenon of hermaphrodidic fish in US rivers.

Shame is, the same level of concern does not apply to the human species

@Donkeygod:

There's a lot of truth to what you say. Indeed, my final words were something of a self-fulfilling prophecy in this context. As for your issues about polygamy and marriages with "a person who's just turned ten", I'll address that: the latter is a complete non-issue. A ten year old cannot consent. You must have the ability to consent and comprehend and sign marriage documents. That's why people who baulk at the idea of homosexual marriage and claim that it's a slippery slope to marrying "inanimate objects and animals" don't have an argument. I don't imagine our perception of what constitutes a reasonable age of consent or a ten year old's ability to comprehend marriage and fill out legal documents will change anytime in the near future.

As for polygamy, I am not entirely sure. From a purely moral perspective, I see nothing wrong it. From a legal perspective, it is fraught with complications.

Subjectively, I cannot counter any accusations that I want this change to "just happen". It's sort of true. I am an impatient kind of woman and it frustrates me that whenever opinion polls pop up, its made pretty clear that most Australians (not a large majority, but a majority nevertheless) are in support of marriage equality. This is a democracy (or at least it tries to be), and the fact that our elected leaders either ignore or outright deny the wishes of the vox populi strikes me as worrisome.

@Diver Dan:

I have no idea what you hope to point out by equating mutations probably caused by the insecticide DDT to marriage equality. Also, on your first post, are you on drugs or something? That's not a "simple view", that makes no effing sense. If your incoherent ramblings are attempting to steer toward "Homosexuality is unnatural, therefore it is wrong", then do the entire internet a favor and throw your computer out of the nearest window. The very computer you typed your insipid post on is "unnatural", you know.

Irate Goldfish,
So you are fighting for marriage equality. When will you realize that marriage was established for the procreation and protection of children. Two males or two females will never produce a family from their genes. They will never be equal. .

Dear Philo,
Who, might I ask, came up with that garbage about the purpose of marriage is to procreate?, that, in my view is absolute bunkum.
Marriage is between two people who love each other and want to spend their lives together, no matter what their sexual orientation is.
Children, if they happen to come along, are a joy, even to adoptive parents.This jargon smacks of some religious concoction.
NSB

The same sex couples, of what is normal behavior in our species ( and other species ), its also found in greater volumes once a life/form becomes overpopulated. I think its natures way of saying " we have reached our limits, and the models shows this maybe a factor, as we grow in ever more greater numbers.

The question is, why are more and more people turning that sexual way?

There must be a trigger.

I believe people turn that way because that's natures way of saying, Iam full or too many......and when a spices is under populated, we see these same life forms getting down business of breeding, when the space of opportunity gives room.

We just maybe UN-evolving. When looking at the facts.



What governs nature, we might never know, but there are cases to back this model.

cactus

@Irate Goldfish:

...My comments were cryptic: Prior to holding any firm opinion on marriage for homosexuals, I believe all people have the need to clarify a modern-day phenomenon of the high profile, achieved objectively or otherwise, and presented to society as the “norm” by the homosexual lobby, which , judging by your comments, you are a part of.

...It is not unimportant to unearth as a precursor to the question of marriage of the sexually aberrated, the logical explanation for the sudden incidence of rampant homosexuality which pervades society at all levels from top to bottom; it is a modern day social phenomenon screaming for an answer, but never given one.

...Homosexuals are self imposed hermaphrodites, either physically or emotionally or both: And as such, either deserve derision or help; which is it to be; and is marriage really an answer for all society, to the social dilemma of the phenomenon of rampant homosexuality? No.

...While the majority of society get along with their daily chores such as walking their favourite daughters down the aisle to wed a lifelong sweetheart of the opposite sex, raise a family and basically do what most of the rest of us do best, live a normal life in a normal manner! We, the normal folk, are asked to question, by the homosexual lobby, “why should the marriage vow remain in the exclusive domain of “normal” mainstream society”? The answer is obvious, homosexuality is a social illness that needs no encouragement!

Iam no bigot, however the numbers are growing. WHY?

cactus

A very sensible, lateral and reasonable argument thank you Blaise.

@ Irate Goldfish

Reckon we agree for the most part. Though I’m not sure your a ‘age of consent’ argument is the last word on the subject.

Different countries recognise different ages at which minors become adults. And, in many societies, ‘consent’ is defined in ways Australians wouldn’t accept. Arranged marriages are common world-wide; consent might be an agreement between elders, without input from the parties being married. My understanding is that such marriages can’t be performed here, but are usually recognised as valid if performed in accordance with the law of the relevant foreign jurisdiction.

Polygymy is permitted under Islamic law. Half of all marriages in Senegal involve multiple wives. What, then, is the marital status of a Senegalese immigrant? Do we recognise all his wives? Just one?

I’m asking because the push towards marriage ‘equality’ for same-sex partners could, if carelessly prosecuted, call into question a good deal more than proponents intend. Recognise marriage as a ‘human right’, drop the proviso that such union be between a man and a woman ... by what legal logic can we then exclude ANY form of marriage? American Mormons might immigrate to Australia en masse. (Not necessarily a bad thing ... Salt Lake City’s a nice place, and the Utah environment isn’t much different from what’s on offer in the NT, but that’s not the point.)

I’m not quibbling, or arguing against. I’ve two lesbian friends who adopted a boy with Downs Syndrome many years ago. They’re every bit as ‘married’ as I am, and they’re amazing parents. Surely their relationship deserves recognition.

The solution, I think, is to aim for EQUIVALENCE, not EQUALITY. An ‘equivalent’ institution for same-sex couples would have the same effect -- social, legal, economic. Because it specifically addresses the needs and aspirations of same-sex couples, though, it’d be hard for wild-eyed activists to use it as a precedent for legitimising other non-standard marriage forms. Simply broadening the existing legal definition of ‘marriage’ seems certain to prompt the kind of speculative litigation that could cloud the issue for decades.

Dear Philo,

I am a law student nearing the end of my degree, as I mentioned a few posts ago. I think I know a thing or two about marriage.

Marriage never has been about "love" or "children". From it's inception, marriage has been primarily centered around property and asset's rights -- literally just how to deal with the belongings of two people who co-reside. Over time, more rights and protections were afforded under the header of marriage. Christianity sort of "usurped" the institution for a while, but check any source: marriage greatly predates Christianity.

And, like I said, in a free, democratic nation where we pay tax, all citizens should have access to the same level of rights and protections.

Some people have considered giving strength to civil unions and to elevate them to the same level of power, as an alternative for marriage for gay couples. I don't feel good about that, but it is better than nothing.

A few points:

* We allow post-menopausal women to marry. If marriage is about breeding, surely they should be forbidden from doing so?

* The author fails to explain how gay marriage will adversely impact children; she just asserts that it will. Given that homosexuals currently enjoy the same parenting rights as heterosexuals, it is clearly not gay parenting that is the issue at stake, but rather the impact of gay marriage on straight parenting. And I really can't see it having any impact at all. What sort of couple are going to go from being loving and attentive to being neglectful and abusive just because homos get hitched? It doesn't make any kind of sense. This non-argument is of the same ilk as tired old furphies like 'gay marriage will turn straight people gay' and 'gay marriage will diminish the value of straight marriage'. They never do explain how or why the behaviour of autonomous heterosexuals is contingent upon the matrimonial state of homosexuals.

Noisy Scrub Bird,
Your absolute ignorance of history places you at the bottom of the class. Marriage has never been about the love between two people no matter their sexual preference. You have a mental fixation. If it has been please demonstrate the history; and when gay marriage was lost to heterosexual relationships. Low class intelligence indeed!

Irate Goldfish
Because your ignorance of reality is lacking and Law in marriage also includes family law and relationships beside property and will. You demonstrate you are but a student who imagines some self importance.

Hear, hear, Philo. Irate Goldfish is clearly lacking when it comes to ignorance of reality, entirely unlike yourself.

I consider homosexuality to be a mental disorder. I think that any species among animals are dominantly heterosexual, because otherways they would be extinct. In any animal population natural mistakes of the body or behavior appear again and again, such mistakes, which do not serve the survival of that species. These mistakes appear in the body, because genes are not "ideally" varied, and in the behavior, because genetical basics let even animal individuals behave a variety of ways. So even animals have a certain individual freedom to behave this or that way (with their given individual genetical basis). So they might behave even homosexually. They won't have descendants then, but these mistakes (from the point of view of the survival of the species) of the behavior might still accidentally appear again and again in generations of any species.

These mistakes might have a genetical basis (not necessarily, at least noone proved this far it was necessary), and they might also have a genetical basis in the case of humans. But human thinking and behavior is far more complex than that of the animals. So while even in the case of animals it is not proven that genes determine homosexual behavior, in the case of humans it is not even likely that genes would determine it.

This sounds logical to me, although it is not only my opinion, but the general view among researchers who study the possible causes of homosexuality. They usually claim that genetical, social and psychological factors might all play some role as background factors. But we don't know the reason in general, and I think it (the relative rates of background factors, the mix of them) might be different in each individual case. It is important to know that some studies appeared in the 1990s in connection wtih possible genetical causes of homosexuality, and they could not prove it still their results were misinterpreted and then widely trumpeted as "your genes do it, you are born that way". This misinformation campaign might be the reason why so many believe this.

am practically sure that genes never determine anyone to be homosexual. They might cause some inclination - eg. some disturbance in sexual and therefore in gender identity. Then a distorted sexual behavior might be built upon that basis.

I think this is parallel with alcoholism. Genes might give an inclination, then social background, psychological problems and individual decisions lead someone towards alcoholism. Homosexuality is also parallel with it in its consequences. Not only promiscuity, AIDS and STDs are extremely frequent among male homosexuals, but drog and attempted suicide, too (and not the least alcoholism, too). So it has its negative social and individual consequences just like alcoholism. And it is also curable, like alcoholism (although not quickly and easily, just like that). There exists a gender reorientation reparative therapy with scientifically proven positive results. Healed homosexuals sometimes demonstrate in front of the APA center, because the majority of psychiatrists decided in the 1970s, under political pressure from the homosexual lobby that homosexuality should not be counted to be a mental illness any more and they often add that it is not curable anyway.

There are therapists, who still think homosexuality is a mental disorder and they give treatment - the mentioned reparative therapy - to those, who ask them. They have an association, and its homepage is www.narth.com You can find many important scientific information there - such information you cannot find elsewhere, because it is concealed. I also propose this link to find more information about this: http://www.fathersforlife.org/dale/index.html#6

Anyone who defends marriage should expect to be demonised. Name-calling is a necessary part of the revisionist case, as they have no real argument apart from appealing to a warped definition of ‘equality.’ Every additional voice of reason threatens the revisionists’ unsubstantiated claim of majority support.
Anyone who wishes to promote the belief that homosexuality is perfectly equal to heterosexuality is embarking on an endless propaganda campaign. This is a belief that can only stand while those with a terminal case of political correctness and a talent for ignoring the obvious are propping it up on all sides. Everyone else will constantly need to be cut off from opposing arguments and re-educated, while being threatened with labels like ‘bigot’ and ‘homophobe’ if they show signs of doubting the new doctrine.

An article in 2001 in the American Sociological Review analized other researchers' articles until that about homosexual parents' effects on their children. They proved that many researchers cheated at their study and falsely concluded that there are no significant differences between children of heterosexual and homosexual children. Homosexual parents often do distort their children's gender identity, as Stacey and Biblarz proved in this articla. But they are not pro-family at all, on the contrary, their cynical conclusion is "so what?".

The data of this article can be found at this link:

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=276907

And you can probably read it in a university library or on the internet through JSTORE.

I think that proper gender roles, gender identity work like the rules of a general social-sexual game. Without them a complete social anarchy might appear in the field of relatioships with many misunderstandings, absurd situations, disappointments, cheatings and many psychological injuries and silent personal tragedies coming from these.

Great article.

I am also a University student. And it's frustrating to see so many young people not engage with te real issues at play here. Thankfully, you've articulated them very well.

It's great to see someone stand up and argue about this. Because unfortunately you'll be branded a nutcase and an idiot by people who have a flawed idea of gay rights and the institution of marriage. These people are blindly following a progressive socialist political agenda. That's all it is.

So thanks for the article. Very well put.

As I've stated in the past - each society views its
own patterns of marriage, family, and kinship as
self-evidently right and proper, and usually as
God-given as well.

Much of the current concern about the fate of marriage
stems from this kind of ethnocentrism. If we believe
that there is only one "right" form of marriage, then
naturally any change will be interpreted as heralding
the doom of the whole institution.

It is important to recognize, therefore, that there is
an immense range in marriage, family, and kinship
patterns; that each of these patterns may be, at least
in its own context, perfectly viable; and above all,
that marriage, and the family, like any other social
institution, must inevitably change throughout time,
in our own society as in all others.

As far as same-sex marriage is concerned - changing
attitudes have made these unions far more socially
acceptable than in the past, and, in fact, some churches
in the US are now performing weddings for gay couples.
A more significant change, perhaps, is the willingness
of many courts to grant custody of children to a
gay parent - usually the mother.

For several years, moreover, social welfare agencies in
New York and other large cities have been placing orphaned
or runaway gay teenage boys - who are unwelcome in
heterosexual foster homes - in the custody of gay males,
usually couples.

The choice that Australians have to make is - what kind
of society they want to live in. From my understanding
the majority of people support same-sex marriage in this
country. Perhaps the way to go would be either a conscience
vote in Parliament or a Referendum.

Oh c’mon! Marriage has EVERYTHING to do with love and progeny; if you can’t see it in humans, just go study geese! Some people have missed a lot of science if they’ve never heard of pair bonding, or oxytocin.

Pair-bonding in Great Apes existed long prior to law. ‘Marriage’ is nothing more than the set of evolved behaviours which maximise prosperity of the group, and minimise conflict over sex and progeny. We don’t call it ‘law’ when orang-utans insist on monogamy and punish unsanctioned sex, but that’s what it is; give them enough time to develop writing and lawyers and they surely INVENT laws not dissimilar to ours. No doubt the first law they pass will be to enshrine monogamy; the second law will probably sanction punishment of the non-monogamous.

Nor is homosexuality a modern human development. Female sea gulls, when nesting habitats are overcrowded, exhibit clear ‘Lesbian’ sexual behaviours, something they don’t do in times of plenty or in less crowded environments. Similar examples abound. It’s entirely reasonable to surmise that, in crowded conditions, homosexuality would be a useful evolutionary tool to reduce fecundity without depriving individuals of sexual satisfaction -- for many species, not just humans. If it’s adaptive, it’s successful.

We need to show respect for homosexual relationships. The question is whether simply declaring that there’s no difference whatsoever between homosexual and heterosexual marriage is adaptive. I’m arguing that’s unrealistic because the proposed mechanism for achieving it is so broad, and so abstract, that our courts will inevitably be asked to encompass polygamy, polygyny, polyandry, group marriage, arranged marriage, and a fair few oddball forms yet to be invented. Not that it WILL ultimately sanction such things ... but if, by careful and clever consideration, we can keep the issue out of the hands of excitable ‘activists’ keen for a tabloid headline, I’d say that’s worth doing.

If we’re careful, conservative, and clever, we can acknowledge same-sex marriage in a way which makes it uncontroversial, and do it NOW. Get the details wrong, and the legal circus could last decades, demeaning all involved.

Mary Ward presents a paper by Dale O'Leary of NARTH to support her argument, however the Royal College of Psychiatrists, Australian Psychological Society, American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association "Expressed concerns that the positions expoused by NARTH are not supported by the science"
The morals of one listed advisor to NARTH George Rekers. who believes homosexuality is a sin, took a young male prostitute on holiday with him in June 2010. When this was revealed Rekers stated the male prostitute was there to carry Rekers luggage whilst on holiday together.
Sorry Mary you must do better!!

Gabe,
I can assure you that at least in the case of this young (26 year old) person, and quite probably many others, their support for gay marriage doesn't stem from a failure to engage with the 'real' issues at play or a blind acceptance of a socialist agenda. It doesn't even stem from a strong committment to gay rights; I'm not gay and I don't know any gay people, so I'm no more concerned with their rights than I am with the rights of heterosexual strangers.

The reason I support gay marriage is because your mob can't formulate a sound argument against it - instead you rely on appeals to emotion, conclusions which don't follow from premises (which are often themselves dodgy) and a truckload of fallacies. Then you sit back and pat yourselves on the back for your solid 'reasoning'. And you wonder why cynical young folk with functional critical faculties find this approach unpersuasive? I'm still waiting for y'all to come up with even one decent argument against gay marriage - once you have, we can see how it stacks up against the arguments in favour of it. You never know, I might just find it more convincing and change sides.

And for the record: I consider the legion of toppled statues littering the former USSR evidence enough that Socialism is a BLOODY STUPID NOTION. Smith was right and Marx was wrong, no matter what the infinitesimally small minority of commies in this country will tell you. But I hardly see what this has to do with gay marriage.

The Acolyte Rizla,
You have not presented one biological or scientific reason for same sex couples to be registered as married. You have merely made lots of empty claims about others posts withour demonstrating scientific evidence.

Marriage has always been associated with the promotion of fertility from the union of two sexes. That is why flowers and rice are associated with the ceremony (now confetti). Same sex unions will never be fertile, or produce children naturally from their union.

If the male homosexual has fertile sperm and the lesbian healthy ovum and can give birth, then they are not born sexually homosexual but disoriented by some conditioning.

It is true the marriage vows deal with relationship between a lawful husband and lawful wife (note gender) and property as shared, Why? Because they are equally committing to setting up house for the purpose of a biological sexual union that may produce family.

Marriage was originally for the young and for life, and in the case of death by one; other members of family stepped in to care for the family. Everyone knew who was genetically related to whom. They could find their family, such is the emotional bonds. My wife was adopted by her girl friends parents at eight after her father died in the bomings of London before she was born and mother died when she was eight. Though she speaks of her adopted parents as mum and dad, her relationship to cousins are by genetics.

Whose child is if in the case of same sex parents leaving an orphan? Who is responsible would it not be the contributing gene donor? Who should the Law consider responsible?

One does not have to breed to be married, as marriage is about two people committing to each other.
My Dad and stepmother cannot make babies because of their age, is their marriage a falsehood.

Philo,
You seem to be confusing the state of matrimony with the act of sexual reproduction, or disingenuously attempting to conflate the two. They are not the same thing, or they would have identical or very similar definitions in the dictionary and would be able to be used interchangeably. They actually have quite different definitions, and cannot be used interchangeably. I assure you that you will never hear a biologist speaking of 'marriage and asexual reproduction' - it's always 'sexual and asexual reproduction'. Nor will you find sexual reproduction counsellors helping couples with their matrimonial difficulties - they are invariably marriage counsellors. Can you see the difference now? You've also managed to confuse 'fertility' and 'homosexuality'. Again, they're totally different concepts. I'm guessing English wasn't your strong suit at school.

You're quite right that I haven't provided any scientific reason in favour of homosexual marriage. This is because it is not a scientific matter. Science is a system of knowledge which utilises the scientific method to explain the universe & its contents. It does not formulate policy, and it does tell people how they should behave. I'm guessing Science wasn't your strong suit either. The system of knowledge which deals with how people should behave is called 'ethics'. Ethical questions should and can take scientific knowledge into account, but it is not the place of science to answer ethical questions or formulate policy, and never has been.

Continued from above.
But let's play it your way for a moment and ignore other relevant concerns to focus on the scientific ones. Off the top of my head, I can't think of a compelling scientific reason to legalise homosexual marriage - but nor can I think of any compelling scientific reason to prohibit it (regarding your point about homosexual intercourse not producing issue: it is a scientific fact that two humans of the same sex can't sexually reproduce. But in many instances, it's a scientific fact that two humans of different sexes can't sexually reproduce either. So the fact that homosexuals can't sexually reproduce cannot constitute a compelling argument against their getting married without also constituting a compelling argument against some heterosexuals getting married).

In the end it doesn't matter that there are no compelling scientific arguments for or against, because there is a compelling moral argument which I regard as axiomatic, i.e. the principle of liberty: " the state or any other social body has no right to coerce or restrict the individual unless the individual causes harm to others, crucially, the individual's own physical or moral harm is not justification for constriction of their liberty" (from wikipedia), or in John Stuart Mill's (peace be upon him) own words "over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign".

The Acolyte Rizla,
Obviously you totally ignore the biological sciences, that only two persons of complementary sex can reproduce. The term marriage means to bring together two substances to form a new substance. The term marry is also used in metalurgy, as well as modern plastics. It means blending to form a new substance.

It has everything to do with the bonding of two genders to reproduce the species. Your isolation from the real world into a cocoon that defines marriage as merely love between two persons, opens the way for adults to marry children, as in Islam. They constitute a larger proportion of our society than Gays.

Philo.

Marriage between humans is a "social" act and institution.
Sex is a biological act - procreation is biological. Marriage, however, is a social mechanism.

Kipp

Dale O'Leary is not George Reakers, and she has nothing to do with NARTH. (Otherways I cannot see any reason to question George Reakers' honesty.) I am sorry but you have no excuse... You read the literature or you prove to be bigot in my eyes.

It is a popularized false belief that "homosexuals are born that way as science proved it".

It is a popularised false belief that "homosexuality is harmless for homosexuals or for other people".

It is a popularitsed false belief, that "homosexual parenting has no harmful effect on children".

And it is also a false belief that homosexuality is not an illness or that it cannot be cured.

See the scientific evidence behind these statements:
http://www.fathersforlife.org/dale/genetic.html
http://www.fathersforlife.org/dale/hparent1.html
http://www.fathersforlife.org/dale/index.htm#6

Judith Stacey - Timothy Biblarz: (How) Does The Sexual Orientation Of Parents Matter? American Sociological Review 2001/2

Goode - Troyden; Psychiatry, 1980, 43: 51-59

Doll et al. Child Abuse & Neglect, 1992, 18: 825-864
www.narth.com

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14567650?dopt=Abstract

Archives of Sexual Behavior 2003 Oct;32(5):403-17 (discussion 419-72).

If anyone has just one day or at least a few hours to read these articles, he or she would have a couple of convincing arguments against the "normalcy" and political or legal acceptability of homosexual marriage.

Poirot,

Marriage is and has always been a biological union.

The marriage ceremony publicly formalizes the sexual union of the couple to the exclusion of all other persons (why all other persons?); and the legal contract registers such a union with the State the legitimacy of that exclusive union.

The couple might have many close loving relationships and shared property with others but if it does not involve a sexual union and it is not a marriage. If it does involve sex it is adultery, and is a violation of the contracted agreement. It does not violate the agreement for one party to inherit property or to love someone else.

Don't tell me that homosexual do not want "marriage" to legitamise their sexual union as normal, as acceptable and legal. Surely it is not just about love and property which does not need a marriage, but a mere civil contract.

Philo,

If marriage was a biological imperative for sexual union and procreation, then it would not be possible to produce offspring from a "living together" arrangement. It does "not" serve a biological function. It does, however, "formalise" a social arrangement.

Philo,
Every single member of the taxonomical class mammalia reproduces sexually, from pygmy shrews to blue whales. Only one of them gets married, 'coz marriage is a sociological concept invited by man, whereas sexual reproduction is a biological phenomenon which has been around for a lot longer than the species Homo sapiens. If sexual reproduction were the same as marriage, cattle breeders would have to be wedding celebrants as well.

i see the "intolerant liberals" from the loony left are ranting incoherantly & demonising normal people as usual.

#1, they constantly complain about the failure of some "heterosexual" marriages while forgetting that immorality & easy divorce is what has been causing the failure of some marriages today.

in other words earlier examples of social engineering designed to manufacture child abuse were successful, therefore we should continue manufacturing child abuse because the "plan for failure" has been working.

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

Then ask yourselves why you are so keen on promoting the neglect & abuse of children.

Mary dear are you saying the medical professional organisations I quoted are wrong! And who are these fathers for life group and what professional study and train have they had to spew such vile towards other persons.
Me thinks your "bigot" comment is directed in the wrong direction my dear!!

Formersnag,
Great link, thanks. I feel I should point out that posting links to absurd conspiracy theories invented by anti-communist American members of the religious right at the height of the Cold War doesn't actually advance your case at all, and actually damages your credibility. But it is freakin' hilarious, so don't stop.

What is not so funny is your ad hominem attack on supporters of gay marriage as 'promoting the neglect & abuse'. I have yet to see a single supporter of gay marriage promoting child abuse, and there is no causal connection between gay marriage and child abuse. And you accuse the left of 'demonising normal people'? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

I think you should apologise for your offensive remarks and/or butt out of the debate. If not, don't start whingeing if folk make unfounded ad hominem attacks against you (and especially don't whinge about the ones which are well founded).

The law and State registrations merely formalize a natural ancient relationship between a man and a woman - that natural biological bond is marriage. The Jews kept written record of genealogies of someone begat a son, begat a son etc, for the last 6,000 years. It was a record of children from the sexual union (marriage).

Marriage is an exclusive bond between the two genders to form family since man lived in caves, prior there was no State registrations. It was the Romans who recorded persons by family to determine its citizens. Get the facts correct! Registrations by the State have only been recorded in recent years, the Church kept the records of who was legally and sexually bonded to who prior to that. Today the Church marriage certificate is not considered a legal document by the State.

It is a sexual union, it has always been a sexual union. That is why exclusive vows are taken for life because the wife was to give birth to their children, and only their children; and the husband is fully responsible to his wife and children. That society today is an emotional mess is because the commitments to love and be pure for life are not worked at or revered.

The fact is marriage has only ever been as a union between a man and a woman and has been recognised since man socialized. State Registrations of that exclusive bond have been a recent requirement. Marriage has only ever been recognised as a union between a man and a woman and that union was respected by other members of the community.

To change the meaning of the term does not give defined rights to the term for those who choose to raise their family, but merely mean a State registration of two persons who on the basis of love for each other are married. The Churches, Mosques and Synagogues that are true to the natural biological fact will never define it otherwise. Otherwise it demeans the lifelong union of the sexes and the purpose of the union.

The Churches, Mosques and Synagogues that are true to the natural biological fact are cosidering another term if the meaning of "marriage" is diluted to be meaningless to include any sexual perversion to be marriage.

Philo,

I find it interesting that despite all this talk of natural procreation being an essential component of marriage, not a single opponent of gay marriage has shown consistency in their arguments and come out in public condemnation of heterosexual marriages which do not produce issue. Why is that?

I fail to see how legalising homosexual marriage "demeans the lifelong union of the sexes". To demean something means to lessen respect for it, but I'll still have the same respect for people who make a lifelong commitment to each other, and respect for that commitment, if gay marriage is legalised. Frankly I'm surprised that you won't, but I think that says more about you than it does about gay marriage.

I think the point in your last post is a capital idea! We can have marriage available to everyone regardless of their sexual orientation; and then, if they want to, various churches etc. can create their own terms for formally recognising the romantic unions they consider appropriate. I imagine that more liberal churches like the Uniting Church would probably just stick with marriages, whilst more conservative churches like the Catholics would opt for a system which excluded homosexuals, non-Catholics etc. (actually, I reckon this idea would suit the Catholics very well - under Catholic doctrine you may not remarry after divorce, but the Marriage Act contains no such provision. With their own system in place, the Catholic Church could exclude divorcees. Similarly, Muslims and fundamentalist Mormons could create systems allowing polygamy, and so on - faiths wouldn't have to rely on the State's one-size-fits-all marriage, but create systems which truly adhered to their teachings). This idea keeps the religious folk happy doing their own thing, whilst not unreasonably depriving anybody else of their liberty. Everybody wins. Nice one, Philo - now get out there and spread the word.

To Acolyte, I think you're being a bit unfair and flippant towards Formersnag when you condemn his link, writing, "absurd conspiracy theories invented by anti-communist American members..."

There is reasonable evidence to assert that communist and homophile movements did indeed share some common ground at that time. Although, the two movements haven't been (and still aren't) synonymous, there are some mutual connections and goals to this date. See this link (scroll down to the subheading "The homophile movement") -

Wikipedia
Socialism and LGBT rights
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism_and_LGBT_rights

It's also understandable that many people may see a common purpose between communists and homophiles who call for same sex marriage. That being the communist goal of the abolition of the (traditional) family. See this link (scroll down to the subheading "II -- PROLETARIANS AND COMMUNISTS") -

Aust National Uni
Manifesto of the Communist Party 1848
Karl Marx and Frederick Engels
http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/classics/manifesto.html#c1r2

However, it is not correct to evaluate that communism and homosexuality are the same cause. Historically, there has been some deep division between the two, and it remains within the ALP today. Frederick Engels himself found homosexuality not to his liking. The following is a quote from the first link above -

"Engels responded with disgust to Marx in a private letter, lashing out at 'pederasts' who are 'extremely against nature', and described Ulrichs' platform of homosexual rights as 'turning smut into theory'."

So there are justifiable reasons for those who hold traditional and conservative values of marriage and family to be highly suspicious of both communists and homophiles. For both their intent and their purpose.

Lastly, a final link for those who may be interested. It's Engels' own work on the subject of family. Even if it is written from a communist perspective, I believe it has much interest for everyone and relates to a great deal of what has been discussed in this thread above.

Caution - it's a big read.

Marxists.org
The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State
Frederick Engels 1884
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/origin-family/index.htm

Kipp

"...are you saying the medical professional organisations I quoted are wrong!"

Yes, of course. This is a political issue for them and they betray science for politics. Healed former homosexuals sometimes demonstrate in front of APA center showing that they do exist, despite APA's official claim that they do not.

What Dale O'Leary did was that she collected some critical facts and studies about this issue.

I haven't written you are a bigot. Only in my eyes (perhaps I am not right) and ONLY IF you do not read scientific literature and the facts and conclusions in them, only political declarations from APA.

But anyway, I do not want to hurt you even conditionally. But what if you really read those articles I quoted? Then we could discuss them.

Otherways I am not Mary Ward, she is just a notable historical person I like. My real name is different. And I am researcher and deal with family sociology and have a PhD in it.

voxUnius,

The list of 'Communist Goals' which Formersnag linked to was not created or compiled by Communists. It was created by one Cleon Skousen, a noted anti-Communist, Mormon & supporter of the John Birch Society in his 1958 book 'The Naked Communist'. I therefore consider this list of communist goals to have about as much credibility as 'The Protocols of the Elders of Zion' (google it if you're not familiar). They are both documents written by folk radically opposed to a given ideology attempting to demonise said ideology by 'revealing' its evil plots for world domination, when in fact said plots are the inventions of the authors. Thus they're both bollocks, and could only be regarded as credible sources by some of the more paranoid & delusional members of the tin-foil beanie brigade.

It’s strange that so many people are equating an infertile married couple with a same sex couple, as if the existence of both proves the same point. They are different issues on different levels of different systems with different causality. Neither has any application for the other, and this attempt at an argument simply equates the fullness of a same sex couple with a medical problem experienced by some people, and thus admits that a same sex couple cannot occupy the place of a married couple.
The medical infertility of a married person (which is not even connected to their sexuality) still stands in contrast to the inability of a same sex couple to utilise their medical fertility. One is a problem within the reproductive system, and the other is not a reproductive system.
Marriage and parenting go together so closely that it’s difficult to talk about one without referring to the other. But since marriage is the union of a man and a woman, infertile couples still fit perfectly well under the definition. The parenting issue is more a case of reverse engineering: in that it is important for a child to be raised by their parents- it’s not important that every marriage produce children.
In any case, an infertile married couple still have advantages over a same sex couple. They have complementary bodies which are designed to be joined sexually in a one-flesh union. And should they wish to acquire children they have the natural relationship which creates children and models adult masculinity and femininity to them, along with gender complementarity.

StatusQuo,
Well said, and perfectly logical!

Be honest Philo, forma snag, Status quo and others against same sex marriage, and say what you feel, that not only do you not understand homosexulity, you also do not accept homosexual people.
A study showed that some people with strong antigay feelings and attitudes, also had latent subconcious homosexual tendencies.

Kipp,
How wrong can you be! I have several friends former gay; and never had any desire for anul sex.

Kipp

It is you who do not seem to understand homosexuality. Although I have given some sources to you.

I don't know about any given homosexual to what extent he or she is responsible for his or her state, the same way as I don't know about any given alcoholist, either.

Homosexuality in a relationship is a different model of relationship than a heterosexual relationship. Homosexual relationship is a model with which a society could not work and survive if it was general (say the big majority of couples were homosexual) while heterosexual relationship is a model with which society is able to work and survive. So heterosexual relationship is the sustainable model while homosexual relationship is just a harmful deviance of it

Mary,

I believe kipp is homosexual. Do you really think that reading a handful of articles gives you a better knowledge of homosexuality than direct experience?

I put it to you that in this age modern reproductive technology, society could easily 'work and survive' if a large majority of couples were homosexual - it might work a bit differently, but it would work nevertheless. It's a moot point anyway, because the majority of couples will never be gay couples: the most generous estimates of the incidence of homosexuality is 10% - some estimates give a much lower rate (personally, I agree that 10% seems a bit of an exaggeration). I don't know who taught you maths, but where I come from even 10% doesn't constitute a large majority.

As for your bald assertion that homosexuality is 'harmful deviance': who, exactly, does homosexuality harm? And how, exactly, does it harm them?

ad majorem ratio gloriam

Yes Mary I am Gay and in a happy and loving relationship for these past 34 years, and we have the support of both our families.
You are not aware obviously of the stigma and brutality gays and lesbians face in their daily lives, and that suicides by gay people is six time higher than hetrosexual people, because of the inhuman and demeaning issues directed towards gay people.
www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=12636
So Mary walk a mile in a gay persons shoes, before you make comment.

The government’s stance on gay marriage is a joke. Who are they to tell us who to marry or not? What gives them the right to tell us who to love? Same sex couples weren’t even recognized until the census of population and housing from 1996 to 2001.The government aren’t willing to legalize gay marriage because they are too scared to do so as it will mean them losing the next election. When will the government stop steeping on the little guy to get power? Not allowing gay marriage is against our constitutional right as human beings. Article 2 talks about the fact that everyone one is entitled to all rights and freedoms set forth in the declaration without distinction of any kind, such as race, color, sex, language, etc. If the government would stop trying so hard to look out for themselves, gay marriage would be legal already. Not only is it against our rights but many researchers have found this kind of legal discrimination and social exclusion, especially when it comes to a core institution as marriage, can cause gay and lesbian people to have higher than average levels of stress and mental illness . Allowing same-sex couples to marry would boost the economy through expenditure on weddings, and an increase in overseas visitors coming to Australia to marry. However we many never know until marriage between same sex couples is legalized.

Student R,
What a lot of irrelavent waffle. No Government dictates who you can love. However marriage is not just about love, it is about responsibility to each other and to their offspring.

It is the government who is responsible for registering legal marriages; so Govts are involved. Marriage registration is not a right for everyone under International conventions, it is a privilege. Same a licenced drivers, not all have a right to drive only those who have passed the suitable tests. Marriage is legal for those who are of a suitable age and are a man and a woman and is not married to someone else.

Gays are free to hold dress up parties to boost the economy if a party is all you want. In fact the State govt give funds to Gays to celebrate Mardi Gras.

Kipp and Acolyte Rizla

About the rate of homosexuals in society - which is 1-2% in reality - see point 5 at this link:

http://www.adherents.com/adh_dem.html

What about the harmful effect, especially when they are such a small minority? Well, we know that children of homosexual couples often have a distorted or uncertain gender identity (see the proposed article form Biblarz and Stacey) which probably means that they will often not be successful in the field of heterosexual relationships and many will end up as a homosexual (or bisexual, TG), much more of them than just 1 or 2%.

Even if they don't have children a homosexual couple mean an example of a possible relationship model for young people. And this might increase the rate of homosexuals. But it is a relationship which usually and naturally doesn't mean new children coming from it. Having sometimes biological children of other people does not basically compensate for the lack of this natural possibility in a homosexual relationship. It is a rarely used possibility. And I should say luckily, because such children might find themselves in an especially disturbing psychological situation - the same way as their biological mothers or fathers who are not there as their parents.

Data show (see the literature I proposed) that male homosexuals have a much higher rate of drug abuse, alcoholism, STDs and AIDS than heterosexuals and they usually do not live in faithful relationships but have dozens of partners in their lives. Their relationships are much more fragile than heterosexual ones. So children whom they have will experience much less stability and they experience the lack of a parent because of practical divorce or of death much more often than children of heterosexual parents. One study found more frequent child abuse among homosexual couples than among heterosexual ones.

Lesbians also have drug abuse and alcoholism much more often than heterosexual women and they disturb and distort their children's gender identity with the model of relationship they live.

ad majorem ratio gloriam

I have to add that drug abuse and suicide is much more frequent among homosexuals in big cities than in rural areas in the US in spite of the fact that it is less socially rejected in big cities. So then the homosexual subculture and style of living which is more prominent and characteristic in big cities seem to be responsible for these negative phenomena rather than the social rejection of homosexuality

Mary there is something missing in your life, being invisible you appear to be using soft targets to make up for what appears to be a lack of self confidence.
Gay and Lesbian people are not on this earth to be abused, for the ego benefit of those of social ignorance, because if you cannot respect others, then you do not respect yourself.

Mary,

The 'gay marriage is bad because it will increase the rate of homosexuality (bisexuality etc.)' is only persuasive if you operate under the assumption that being gay (bisexual etc.) is a bad thing. But I don't hold this assumption, and nor do a lot of other folk.

I doubt the children of gay couples living with only one of their biological parents would find it an "especially disturbing psychological situation". I see no reason to assume that they would find it any more psychologically disturbing than other children raised by only one of their biological parents. Many of my friends were raised by only one of their biological parents, and don't seem to have been the least bit disturbed by it - indeed, I would argue that they are better adjusted than some of my friends raised by both biological parents.

As for your argument that 'gay marriage is bad because gays make parents': I feel I should point out that this is another moot point - homosexual couples enjoy exactly the same parenting rights as heterosexual couples. The debate is not about gay parenting (that debate has already been settled in favour of gay parenting): it's about gay marriage. Irrelevant arguments don't actually score any points, I'm afraid. But leaving the issue of irrelevancy to one side, there are still big problems with this argument. Consider an argument almost identical to yours:

TBC

Continued from above:

Data shows (http://www.abs.gov.au/) that a certain group in our society has a much higher rate of drug abuse, alcoholism and STD's than the general population. They are more likely to abuse their children, more likely to commit suicide and more likely to be incarcerated. As such, I propose that they be forbidden from marriage.

Now, I'd hazard a guess that at the moment, you consider my proposition quite reasonable (if not, you're being rather inconsistent). But that certain group I was talking about are indigenous people: Aboriginals & Torres Strait Islanders. Suddenly it doesn't sound so reasonable any more, does it? And why do we consider this an unreasonable proposition? I believe there are two main reasons. The first is that we recognise that just because indigenous people sometimes make bad parents, and are indeed more likely to be bad parents, they don't necessarily make parents - some make wonderful parents. We do not punish the group as a whole for the misdemeanors of a few, and we do not revoke the entire group's rights on the grounds that they are more likely to abuse them. Instead, we look to punish those that do abuse them. I put it to you that we should treat homosexuals no differently.

The second reason is that although all those unpleasant statistics about indigenous people are true, we recognise that they are not because the person is indigenous - they arise from the disadvantage suffered by indigenous people. It is not ethnicity which causes such poor outcomes, but rather socio-economic status. The important point here is that although there is a correlation betwixt aboriginality and poor outcomes, aboriginality in and of itself is not the cause of those poor outcomes. The difference between cause and correlation is a very important one. Whilst there may be a correlation betwixt homosexuality and poor outcomes, your argument does not establish any causative link betwixt them - it merely assumes it. Without the establishment of that causative link, your argument is unpersuasive at best.

Kipp

Social ignorance? Soft targets?

Have you read but one line from the articles I proposed?

I have written a series of facts, research results and arguments. Do you accept them and agree with them or not? If not then what are your counterarguments? If you have not any then what do you base your suppositions about me?

I tried to understand homosexuality that is why I have read quite a lot about it. By now I have some results. Do YOU really understand it? Have you ever thought about it, reflected upon it? And on your own way of life, on your own life and the advancement of your personality?

Acolyte Rizla

I wrote that a homosexual couple means a bad example for children and young people who copy social examples when they form their ideal, way of thinking, values and behavior in connection with relationships and sex. A society with such a model of homosexual relationships wouldn't work, it would collapse demographically. So it is necessary for any human society to sideline and strictly limit such a model - and any other model (say bisexual, TG etc.) that would undermine its survival. This limiting might happen by law by everyday behavior (habits etc.) or both.

Marriage is about reproductive sex of heterosexual couples, about its defence and about the defence of raising children who are naturally conceived in them. It ever was. Any society that would give up such a model would sentence itself to gradual collapse.

Societies in the developed world are already slowly collapsing because of the often too low or declining fertility rates. Migration imight only be a temporary help like blood trasfusion for a person who have a grave and uncurable illness like cancer. This "no marriage no child" culture is spreading in the 3rd world, too, and it will eat them, too. When the normal family is no important any more, then might become widely accepted any other model - like homosexual lifestyle.

In a normal heterosexual society becoming a homosexual might often if not always the result of some distortion in the family, ist values or behavior, or some other serious psychological in childhood or the teen years. These might lead not only to homosexuality but to other consequences like drug abuse and the others. Promiscuity which is quite understandable in a relationship of two mwn might aggravate the personal psychological problems. So in a society where heterosexuality is the norm and rightly so homosexual persons are necessarily such persons that they usually cannot raise children properly and so marriage is not for them.

As I have said previously, a girl I know left her Lesbian mother and friend to live with a group of promiscuious teenagers 15 - 18 year olds next door to me when she was only 15. She had no loving father during her essential development years of pubity to model true masculinity. This freedom led her into promiscuious and wreckless living and trouble with the police. Girls need a loving, wise and guiding father in their life.

Mary,

If children and young people copy social examples when forming their sexual identity, where do gay people come from? It's only very recently in terms of human history that homosexuality has come out of the closet and been socially visible. Prior to that, there wouldn't have been any social examples to copy - and yet we have well documented examples of homosexuality in eras when there were social examples to copy. Where did these homosexuals come from? And if we assume that parents are the most important influence on their offspring's sexual orientation, how is it that heterosexual parents are responsible for raising far more homosexual children than homosexuals are? If straight parents can produce gay kids, is it not plausible that gay parents can produce straight kids?

TBC

Continued

The world's population is predicted to grow to as much 10.5 billion within the next 40 years. Frankly, I'm a lot more concerned about the many negative impacts of over-population than I am about low fertility rates. But I wanted to verify your argument about gay marriage causing demographic collapse. Unfortunately, my crystal ball was on the blink, my Tarot deck is missing 3 of its major arcana, and I didn't have any handy chickens to disembowel. So I was just about to give it all up as a lost cause, when I remembered something: you can't actually tell the future. Nobody can. The future is unwritten and unknowable, and ever since Hume demonstrated the problem with induction it has been accepted in philosophical circles that even seemingly reasonable claims about the future cannot be logically justified. And you didn't even make use of inductive reasoning in your claims about the future. At best, your argument would be described as wild speculation. Speculation in place of argument earns you no points, I'm afraid. And I'm sorely tempted to award you negative points for attempting to use the slippery slope fallacy, but I'm feeling charitable so I'll let you off with a warning this time.

All those things in your last paragraph which 'might' be the case might also not be the case. If they aren't, then the conclusion "homosexual persons are necessarily such persons that they usually cannot raise children properly and so marriage is not for them" is false. I should also point out that the first part of that statement, "homosexual persons are necessarily such persons that they usually cannot raise children properly" can be applied to some other people, e.g. "alcoholic (drug addicted, gambling addicted, psychopathic, schizophrenic etc.) persons are necessarily such persons that they usually cannot raise children properly", but that your conclusion "and so marriage is not for them" is never applied to alcoholics etc., as long as they are heterosexual alcoholics etc. Does this seem entirely reasonable to you?

Acolyte Rizla

"If straight parents can produce gay kids, is it not plausible that gay parents can produce straight kids?"

Yes, of course. Say 1% of heterosexual parents raise homosexual chldren and 1% of homosexual parents raise heterosexual children. This is - or would be - logical.

We only know that only a tiny percentage of persons raised by heterosexual parents end up as homosexual. So then the opposite is quite logical that a large part (or most) of persons raised up by homosexuals would have homosexual (or other disturbed, not heterosexual) gender identity. The Biblarz - Stacey article showed some research results about that.

Any culture, any typical behavior has exceptions, deviance, why should the norm of heterosexual relationship be different. I don't wonder there are and always were deviations from this norm. The question only is if they are justifiable in the long run and if they are justifiable as a possible, alternative model of society. I don't think so, I explained why.

Yuo are right that I have "might"-s in my last paragraph. I think that there is scientific evidence supporting them in the articles I have quoted. I suggest you to read them and then we can discuss, whether these "mights" mean "very likely" or "very unlikely"

Acolyte Rizla

You wrote about the 10 billion people of the Earth in the newest UN projection. I just suggest links of 3 ineresting articles in connection with this:

http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110511/full/473125a.html

http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/08/populations

http://www.prestonwillis.com/trends/the-last-woman-on-earth/

So this projection seems not to be creditable and really scientific, but a tool of political manipulation.

A great French demographer, Bourgeois-Pichat made a fairly different projection about the long-time population of the world in the 1980s. See it in French in the 1988/1 issue of the French demographic review Population (you can find it in any bigger library). You can read its English summary on p43 and see its most important Graph 6 on p27. He estimates that humankind will disappear by 2400 AC with reaching a fertility level which is around the current European average. And worldwide developments of fertility levels of countries go that direction. That is the realistic projection. I say so - and I have been a researcher in the fields of demography, population policy and family sociology in the last 1.5 decades.

The Acolyte Rizla,
Homosexuality is an act not a person, as many men considered heterosexual engage in homosexual acts. It is men engaging in anal sex with other men that is socially abhorrent. The pracise is part of a society that is obsessed with abnormal sex, adultery, promiscurity etc. This has never been any different.

Philo you are so stuck in this obession with sex acts, that it borders on concern.
By the way anal sex is a common sex act in hetrosexual relationships and hetrosexual marriages, as is oral sex. Therefore what consenting adults do in their own home, is none of your business.

Philo,

If a man engages in a homosexual act, it is because he is homosexual or bisexual. Heterosexual men are not sexually attracted to other men, and consequently do not have sex with them (consensually, at any rate). I advise that you invest in a new dictionary, 'coz the one you're working out of is at odds with the common usage of English.

I find it interesting that only male-to-male anal sex which is abhorrent. Does that mean that if homosexuals only engage in oral sex, they're not really gay?

Kipp,
That is why we have a high degree of cervical cancers, from bacteria from the bowel entering the sterile cervix.

It is certainly a concern as taxpayers we have to foot the bill; as they do for bowel tears.

Philo,

Nearly all cases of cervical cancer are caused by HPV, a very common STD affecting ~80% of sexually active people. HPV stands for human papillomavirus - a viral infection, rather than a bacterial one, and one which spreads readily through all forms of sexual activity. It does not, however, infect the bowel: HPV only infects the basal cells of stratified epithelium, and the bowel is lined with columnar epithelium. Whilst you're shopping for your new dictionary, I suggest you pick up a biology text book too.

The Acolyte Rizla,
The bowel is a point of excretion of all foreign matter to a healthy body including virus.

Anyway the "how" is just one factor here. All of those should be taken into account I have written about.

Philo,

Any matter which ends up in the lower GI tract comes from the upper GI tract. For HPV to be present in the bowel, it must be ingested and pass through the stomach first. And the HCl present in the stomach is of sufficiently low pH to destroy the vast majority of viral particles, including HPV.

The argument that children have historically done better in heterosexual families ignores the causality. i.e. is it the relationship of the parents that causes the problem? Or could it possibly be the alienation and persecution of the parents and their children by SOCIETY that has created this disparity between outcomes for the children?

Methinks it is most likely the latter, which is the very reason why recognised gay marriage should be put into legislation ASAP.

TrashcanMan

Drug abuse and suicide is much more frequent among homosexuals in big cities than in rural areas in the US in spite of the fact that it is less socially rejected in big cities. So then the homosexual subculture and style of living which is more prominent and characteristic in big cities seem to be responsible for these negative phenomena rather than the social rejection of homosexuality.

A homosexual couple means a bad example for children and young people who copy social examples when they form their ideal, way of thinking, values and behavior in connection with relationships and sex. A society with such a model of homosexual relationships wouldn't work, it would collapse demographically. So it is necessary for any human society to sideline and strictly limit such a model - and any other model (say bisexual, TG etc.) that would undermine its survival. This limiting might happen by law by everyday behavior (habits etc.) or both.

Marriage is about reproductive sex of heterosexual couples, about its defence and about the defence of raising children who are naturally conceived in them. It ever was. Any society that would give up such a model would sentence itself to gradual collapse.

Societies in the developed world are already slowly collapsing because of the often too low or declining fertility rates. Migration imight only be a temporary help like blood trasfusion for a person who have a grave and uncurable illness like cancer. This "no marriage no child" culture is spreading in the 3rd world, too, and it will eat them, too. When the normal family is no important any more, then might become widely accepted any other model - like homosexual lifestyle.

In a normal heterosexual society becoming a homosexual might often if not always be the result of some distortion in the family, its values or behavior, or some other serious psychological problem in childhood or the teen years. These might lead not only to homosexuality but to other consequences like drug abuse and the others. Promiscuity which is quite understandable in a relationship of two men might aggravate the personal psychological problems. So in a society where heterosexuality is the norm and rightly so homosexual persons are necessarily such persons that they usually cannot raise children properly and so marriage is not for them.

Mary you are talking bull dust and you know it, and your demeaning comments towards Gay people are nothing more than bullying.
Because your hateful comments feed the bigots and bullies, who cause young Gay people to self harm and suicide.
Would you dare say what you have face to face, with parents of a Gay child, of course not as you can stay invisible when spreading your bile!

Kipp,
Your arguments are nothing but bitter emotional reactions and not natural healthy reality for the defense of family.
You used these 12 words in three sentences:
"bull dust"
"demeaning comments towards Gay"
"bullying"
"hateful comments"
"bigots"
"bullies"
"bile"
Hardly a discussion or reasoned defense for gay marriage.

Philo by your vitriolic attitude towards Gay people, you are aware that Jesus Christ would condemn you!

Kipp

Yes, I would dare to stay that, of course. And I dare to say now that you have not read but a word from the qoutations I have put here in this debate a few days and pages ago. Or have you?

And would you qoute, please my hateful sentences (if you find but one)?
Or is it polite and just from anyone's part (including you) accusing someone of something without evidence?

Are you interested in facts at all, in general? What if you really, really read those articles I proposed? Without anger and prejudice?

Kipp,
My closest mate was formerly homosexual before becoming Christian. He is now 63 has never married is a brilliant musician and accountant. I worked with him for 9 years. He has adopted a whole family, mother, father, and three boys as his family; as he is relatively well off. I have nothing against any persons. I abhor the homosexual act, and I will continue to speak out against such.

It's all about the children. The common argument against gay marriage - think about the children.

Are we 1) referring to children of parents in heterosexual relationships that will be affected by gay marriage? Or 2) is it about the potential children that will magically be spawned once gay marriage is allowed.

If you honestly believe that heterosexual relationships will be changed or diminished then you have very little faith in relationships - perhaps your own and I think you should be looking at your own relationship then trying to stop others trying to get married.

In regards to the second point, lets be clear - we AREN'T talking about gay adoption, or gay foster parents - We are talking about gay marriage. The common argument against that is of course 'well once you open that door what's next!". Well, to that, I say the jury is out - but just remember that gay foster parents and gay adoption are are already allowed in many states.

Personally I know where i stand, but there is just as much evidence that points to homosexual couples being able to raise children as heterosexual ones - the waters are very much muddied by political and personal views.

What we do know for certain is that children are suffering now, and they're being ignored by the people who are most vocal about wanting to protect them.

People are ignoring the children who are bullied because they're gay.
People are ignoring the children who don't feel like they can be accepted by their families and have to hide the truth because they're gay.
People are ignoring the children who commit suicide because they can't handle the bullying, the helplessness and the fear of being gay.

If children are our future, then you are turning them aside by ignoring the children who are gay. I honestly believe that until such a basic fundamental human right as getting married is allowed to gay people then we aren't doing all we can to stamp out bigoted, closed minded bullies.

Zapo,
Marriage as defined by the gay community will not stop bullying. Bullies do not respect human rights. You have a false expectation in the change in the definition of the act of marriage.

Philo

Same Sex marriage isn't being defined by the gay community, it's being defined or supported by a much larger group.

Social change is in part helped on by changes to laws. Did the perception of women not change over time as they were able to vote? Did the perception of African-Americans not change after the end of slavery and segregation? It's naive to think that it wouldn't have an impact.

When the government is essentially discriminating against homosexual people - what kind of message does that send? It won't end bullying, I'm not that optimistic, but I think it's just one of the many other things to further acceptance.

Zapo,

there are no gay children. There are childen with a Gender Identification Disorder (GID). This is very rare, only about 0,1% of children have it (see www.narth.com) while the rate of homosexuals is 1-2% in society (according to many surveys). GID can probably be managed and healed by proper psychotherapy in most if not all cases. So noone should become a homosexual - if it came from childhood.

Where can it come from? Not sexual bullyng or (not necessarily violent) sexual abuse might often trouble ones identity and psychosexual development in childhood or teenages so that he or she can become unsuccessful in the field of normal heterosexual relationships. This might also be the result when the child has something strange in his or her personality either on a genetic basis or without it. Not GID, not necessarily something directly sexual. Just some weird particularity. That might be enough to object success in relationships. And then the false conclusion might come: "I seem to be too much different so perhaps I am not normal, heterosexual".

Zapo,

now about the "magically be spawned" children of homosexual couples.

See this article:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/1916462.stm

and this:

http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2011/10/18/social-engineers-and-the-abuse-of-children/

They are really worth reading by anyone who want to see the dimensions of this question.

The institute of marriage is in crisis because of the lack of courage, generosity and logic. In stead of patiently basing committed relationships young people jump into nonsense relationships, sexually, too, since they think that "anything goes" and "why not, no consequences". And they don't stay in committed realtionships, perhaps often because their mentality was already transformed by their own promiscuous lifestyle. Legalization of homosexual marriage would further strengthen this "anything goes" mentality.