"Gay marriage by definition denies a child either a mother or a father."

Yes, yes, yes... but so does divorce and widowhood, and I have yet to see any anti-gay-marriage campaigners crusading against divorce or trying to force widowed partners to remarry. Funny that 'suffering children' is only a problem when it comes to gay marriage, isn't it?

But on the basis of your twisted logic that 'it's all about the children', you should be supporting polyamorous marriages. surely: after all, the more people you bring in to a relationship, the more likely it is that at least one is female.

I strongly support Jim Wallace’s comments above. I have no problem with having an informed discussion about the relative merits of homosexual marriage, or any other type of marriage. Unfortunately the discussion that is being promoted online and through various media outlets is not based on facts. While admitting that the heterosexual viewpoint has not always been expressed in an appropriate and gracious manner, the double standards and illogical arguments used by the homosexual lobby are breathtaking.

It would be great if political parties and “current affairs” programs could focus on a discussion based on truth and respect, not a discussion built on hidden agendas and unsubstantiated and often threatening comments.

So all surrogacy is wrong... is it Mr. Wallace?

See if you can think of at least one exception you might not classify negatively.

Or don't the ACL think it possible to lead by example?

Divorce etc occur because of tragedy or desertion and as a society we don whatever we can to prevent this because of our concern for kids. Same-sex couples acquiring babies through surrogacy must dliberately decide to rob a child of one of its biological parents. While adult desires are valid, they should never trump the rights of a child. Severing a child from its biological parents is harmful. There needs to be some limits to the gay political agenda.

It would seem that the pushy gay community is hoist on their own petard!

Perhaps more important issues might get back on the public agenda.

Oh dear. Another anti-gay marriage proponent basing his opposition on the slippery slope as if it was somehow a solid argument. How predictable. And how predictably unpersuasive. Try again Jim.

>>Severing a child from its biological parents is harmful.<<

Then how do we explain all the orphans and so on who have been raised by unrelated parents and have done just fine? Are they the exceptions that prove the rule? I think most kids will do just fine when raised by responsible and loving adult(s) with the child's best interests at heart - regardless of how much genetic similarity the child and parent and share or what the parent's sexual orientation is.

Cheers,

Tony

simply the 'gay'lobby wanted perverse lifestyles condoned. Whether legal or not like the killing of babies its always wrong and always will be.

Jim Wallis is absolutely right! If you chang e the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples, there is nothing to stop it from being changed again.

This is a complete nonsense. We've seen it happen in the Netherlands. Canada recently had a debate about legalising polygamy.

None of this would be good for our country.

Typical tail wagging the dog comment from a dyed in the wool control freak? People everywhere regardless of race, colour, ethnicity, religious belief or sexual orientation, have an equal right to the pursuit of personal happiness and sexual gratification.
All the Gay community seem to be asking for is the formalisation of already existing long term relationships?
The times they are a changing and if you can't help with that change, toward real rather than sham democracy, then get out of the way and take your patently medieval belief system with you!
Remember always, that not all that long ago, Mother church could excommunicate those that believed on the basis of irrefutable scientific evidence, that the world was round.
Even so, there remains a flat earth society head-quartered in London.
I believe most of the anti gay lobby come from the more backward less developed parts of the planet; and then, only from the less educated, red neck bigots?
Perhaps the only way we can stop Mr Wallace from judging the morals of others, and refocus solely on his own; is to entirely negate all his often spurious argument with a referendum, followed by a conscience vote?
Perhaps the conscience vote could be conducted as a secret ballot, so that Mr Wallace's equally ignorant fellow travellers, can't organise electoral reprisals? Rhrosty.

""Same-sex couples acquiring babies through surrogacy must dliberately decide to rob a child of one of its biological parents.""

Posted by James Bigglesworth, Tuesday, 5 June 2012 8:11:35 AM

It doesn't have to "rob" the child of one of its biological parents, that would only happen if, during the child's life, that biological parent was unreasonably excluded or negated. "Severing" does not have to happen or be seen to have happened.
.......................................

Concerned_p, today, 7:35:03 AM - yes, "focus on a discussion based on truth and respect" would be appropriate.

To what what illogical arguments do you refer?
.....................................

runner, 9:52:41 AM - what has gay marriage and gay couples seeking to raise children got to do with killing babies?
Also, plenty of heteros also have perverse lifestyles, runner.

"Marriage was institutionalised to protect not only society from the nonsense of things like multiple unions, but specifically children. Unless children were involved, government would have no interest in marriage."

Even if this were true, the corollary of Jim's argument is that governments should be involved and interject when children are born or raised outside marriage. Therefore, by Jim's argument, gay marriage is desirable, especially for children whose "other parent" has died, and his next assertion is negated -

"Neither gay nor polyamorous “marriages” could serve the interests of children. Gay marriage by definition denies a child either a mother or a father."

Parental death does that, too.
.......................................

"Mother love and father love that no amount of gay-activist-dominated studies can tell a parent doesn’t matter to a child."

Jim, are you saying love needs to be qualified?
................................................

"if nature can be brought into this argument, then surely biological marriage is the natural stopping point" ....

.. is just the naturalistic fallacy, which Jim negated previously when he said

""... Nikko Antalffy .. recently gave a rambling defence of polyamory in a national newspaper, claiming it takes us back to our pre medieval natural desires",

yet also redefined when he said

"But let’s be honest, they are in reality pagan desires, customs rightly long rejected"
...............................

Here Jim poisons the well ..

" .. now only contemplated by a parliament that is perhaps less esteemed than any in the country’s history. A parliament forced to consider the intolerable due only to the artificial power of the Greens."

How fortunate it is that Jim Wallace draws attention to the inevitable next steps which will follow present moves to meddle with marriage.
Marriage is an institution established in response to nature's design and should remain in its present form.
Same sex relationships are in a different category and the law should continue to reflect that fact.
Moves already afoot to list other mixtures of people under the heading of marriage smack of social science fiction.

Pat G,
homosexuality is part of 'nature's design' too, as it is innate.

Technically the only way to sever a child from the biological sperm or egg donor, is through abortion; or perhaps, contraception?
If medical abortion is permitted; along with contraception for even more valid health reasons, then why not surrogacy?
If invitro-fertilisation is okay for infertile couples, then why not surrogacy?
If adoption is okay, which also disadvantages the biological, if impoverished parents, then why not informed consent surrogacy?
There are places in the world where consenting parents will sell a child, but particularly a female one?
If that's acceptable or allowed or somehow formalised, even where the extremely unfortunate child is sold into sexual slavery, then why not informed consent surrogacy/adoption, as an alternative, that places the child, regardless of gender, in a very safe and loving stable advantageous environment, then why not?
But particularly if it allows impoverished couples, to back away from having to decide to sell a child into bondage or slavery?
It's time that this debate got real and faced all the relevant facts, rather than the very selective subjective ones! Rhrosty.

McReal
The Human Genome Project & studies of identical twins have both found that, while there may be a genetic predisposition towards homosexuality, homosexuality is not innate.

Beaker,
There is virtually no evidence that homosexuality has a significant genetic basis - if you think you have some, it would be appropriate to post a reference or link.

The testimony of almost all homosexuals is that *homosexuality is innate* and that is overwhelmingly significant. Of course, there will be a 'degree' of bisexuality and other non-singularity in the continuum of human sexuality, but those are small 'degrees'.

I don't see Jim's argument as a slippery slope one, and I don't understand why no-one has yet defended the right of the polygamous to marry. It's interesting that the Anglican Church will recognise polygamous marriage in societies that have historically practiced it, such as PNG.

McReal

'Also, plenty of heteros also have perverse lifestyles, runner.'

so true McReal, however they are not trying to have them recognised by the law and pretending that they are equal to the God given institution of marriage.

you also ask

'what has gay marriage and gay couples seeking to raise children got to do with killing babies?

the debate in the 60's and 70's was suppose to be about the poor teenage girl who after being raped had to carry another man's baby. Of course that is the deceitful arguement used by the social engineers who now are please we have open slaughter. The same people now arrogantly dismiss the slipery slope arguement for 'gay'marriage. They deliberately ignore history and gag reason by their deceitful tactics. They deny the obvious affect on fatherless children and demonise anyone speaking what is obvious.

McReal,
My first statement agrees with your first paragraph above.
Do you mean by your second statement that homosexuality is due primarily to environmental factors? If so, I agree with that also.
In what way do you consider our discussion to be relevant to the same-sex marriage debate?

This whole piece reminds me Mrs Lovejoy's famous "won't somebody PLEASE think of the children!" If marriage is all about the child, as Mr Wallace assumes, then it would be inconceivable to think of marriage as a sign of union and love between the parties involved, wouldn't it?

There are numerous married couples in the world with no children at all. Single parents with loads of children - my mother raised three of us for the majority of her adult life, alone and unassisted. We all grew up pretty well for children with no father.

As for why there is a problem with marriage equality, I might suggest that it is not for a concern of society, or children, but the fact that gay people are such a minority that it's not something MOST of society is able to stomach. Mr Wallace and the ACL at large need to back up a minute and ask themselves: why is it their business? They make out like they're doing what's best for society, but their ideal society would have no gay people, because their part of a group of people that cling to traditional ideas from times when mankind couldn't stomach the notion that two people of the same sex might actually be in love. We've come a long way since then - unlike societies in 200BC, I have no inclination to stone my brother because he loves a man.

Wallace notes, "But let’s be honest, they are in reality pagan desires, customs rightly long rejected, and now only contemplated by a parliament that is perhaps less esteemed than any in the country’s history. A parliament forced to consider the intolerable due only to the artificial power of the Greens."

And here we get to the truth of it - a religiously-driven power play against pagan desires, but define pagan please, Mr Wallace. To which religion is this deemed pagan? Rejecting customs is something done with regularity when customs are found to be WRONG, not right, so which part of society is still clinging to the idea that it is a "rightly long-rejected" custom to exclude gay people as second-class citizens? I'm glad, though, that you were finally able to admit your intolerance of gays having the same rights as you here. And if the Greens have power, it's because the people give it to them. That should say something to you, Jimmy boy.

Another christian lobbyist who claims to be ever so concerned about the impact on marriage and on children of the concept of same sex marriage (and likewise bothered by the idea of pluralistic marriages).

So just where does the ACL stand on catholic requirements for celibacy in it's clergy and the dreadful outcomes for children that's contributed to?

Where does the ACL stand on aging nominally celibate men providing relationship guidance to couples?

Both those are issues which it would be far easier to trace to harm to children than any risks associeted with same sex couples who can already raise children being allowed to have state recognition of their relationships.

Where does the ACL stand on the divisive nature and implementation of Family Law and so called child support?

Again both very easy to find ties to harm to children from parental conflict and or disadvantage yet I'm not seeing a lot of articles by christian lobbyists seeking better ways of doing that stuff.

I don't think the concern for the concept of marriage or the reality of children has much to do with this otherwise we'd see a lot more effort to address the big area's of concern. Rather both are excuses to attack a move which could give same sex couples a little more recognition in society.

R0bert

IF the word marriage has a common meaning what might it be?

Marriage, according to the law in Australia, is the union of a man
and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered
into for life. (-Standard Marriage Service in the State of Victoria )

Or for the more traditional who perhaps read Jane Austin

DEARELY beloved frendes, we are gathered together here in the sight of God, and in the face of his congregacion, to joyne together this man and this woman in holy matrimony, which is an honorable state.(- from the book of common prayer)

So this is really not too tricky

Marriage has a longstanding meaning and it involves the union of a man and a woman

Modern society may wish to sanction formal unions based on loving relationships involving; a man and a man, a woman and a woman,or multiple numerical combinations of men and women.

However, by established definition and common usage these alternative formal unions are not ever likely to be recognized as genuine 'marriages'in the traditional sence.

How about calling them 'civil unions'?
Jane Austin, I believe, is silent on such nomenclature

"However, by established definition and common usage these alternative formal unions are not ever likely to be recognized as genuine 'marriages'in the traditional sence."

That'll only matter to people who think tradition matters. Tradition is just the excuse of the ignorant who refuse to accept change.

"Marriage has a longstanding meaning and it involves the union of a man and a woman"

That meaning only applies in a culture where marriage is between a man and a woman, but it excludes those cultures who have a different meaning. For example, for certain single men and women, marriage means being tied to someone inexplicably for life and you'll never be able to experience other people in that same way. The same applies for the Christian moral approach that considers such promiscuity as a bad thing, but that's just because that's what they've been told - they haven't tried it, nor do they acknowledge that many who are doing it lead very happy lives.

Marriage, to me, is as a binding contract between two people, signifying one's love for another, foresaking all others. In other words, I would only get married if I actually had no interest in others at all. If I found one person to live my life with, and lost interest in all others, I would marry. Until then, it's not for me.

The meaning of marriage is not for any one person, religion, author or state to define, and therefore that is what it means, because to many cultures it means something entirely different. Assuming your meaning is the only meaning is arrogant and foolish.

Great article Jim. The gay marriage proponents would certainly like the polygamists out there to keep quiet at the moment while they promote their lies about ‘marriage equality’. The comments from the gay proponents against this article are as illogical as the sexual activity of gay people is perverse. I’d like to hear from the people who’d like to marry their pets – there is undeniably an extremely strong bond between many single people and their pets, so surely they should be allowed to marry too based on the gay arguments.

But in all honesty, you’ve got to feel so sorry gay people – really, what a terrible infliction to have. They can’t naturally have kids, and they so desperately want to be accepted in the community as being married. Whatever laws parliament makes on this issue, you’ve got to feel sorry for them. However, I especially feel so sorry for any unfortunate children who are raised by a gay couple, whether they like it not. And, yes, of course, not all heterosexual couples are perfect (yawn – would someone like to trot out that so very irrelevant argument again?)

If you really do need to feel sorry for someone, feel sorry for yourself. Being gay doesn't mean people don't have genitals, so the assumption that they are incapable of natural reproduction is something of an affront to human intelligence. I feel sorry for you - I'd hate to be that dumb. It must be hard to make friends...

I'm sure, though, that you have a lot of friends and get along with them all really well. After all, when you put fifty people with Down's syndrome in a room together there is bound to be a lot of hugging, but I think your most likely affliction is just plain ignorance. On the other hand, you could also just be trolling.

When I was about eight, I drew a face on my hand and practiced kissing it, which I will admit is a little gay, and I have often thought there would be advantages to homosexuality such as Abercrombie & Fitch reward points, successful couch fabric selection capabilities and the gift of dance. With or without a top on. This would come in extremely useful if I needed five hundred dollars and saw a poster advertising a dance competition with a first prize of five hundred dollars.

Unfortunately, it's not my thing, and I would never choose it. No one would. The fact is that gay people are as much a process of natural selection as stupid people like yourself are. Your suggestion that gay people can't naturally have kids suggests that at least you have some concept of the fact that being gay is perfectly natural. However, your logic functions failed when you drew this conclusion.

The fact that gay people are not naturally attracted to the opposite sex does mean that they should not be forced into a loveless marriage with someone just so that they can be married - they fall in love with people of the same sex, and want to marry them because of that. Not just for the sake of marriage. It's a concept that many straight people fail to understand.

Ben of Perth, animals or pets cannot give consent, hence you cannot marry your pet!
Nice try Ben, but ignorance is not bliss, when it comes to bigots!!

Jim Wallace makes good sense with this article. Those making negative comments are missing the facts presented.

There is clear evidence that other groups beside the gay community eg. polyamours, are desiring marriage and it is obvious that these groups will also push for such. Where will it stop? - a valid question.

What is with Croome’s discrimination?

Until now, my natural good manners have prevented me from posting here.

But since we have reached the point where we are blithely discussing marrying our pets, I'm confident that my crass behaviour will go completely unnoticed.

So here goes.

"Putting Pandora back in the marriage equality box"

Ummmm... Pandora was never in the box to begin with, so she could hardly be "put back", could she?

Ok, now I feel much better.

Come here Tiddles, it's time for our nap...

I am a mainstream christian and I know that Jim Wallace and the "Australian Christian Lobby" does not speak for me. I wonder how many people this lobby does speak for when a majority of Australians are in favour or 'marriage equality'.

Any mention of polygamy in the context of opposing marriage equality is a laughable and monstrous red herring. It is laughable because polygamy refers to one man marrying 3, 3, 4 or more women, or more rarely one woman marrying 2 or more men. I have never heard of three or four men wanting to marry each other or a group marriage of 3 or more women.

In any case, children born into a polyamorous family can hardly be seen as neglected when there are more parents for them to bond with.

Mr Wallace, you;ve had a fair hearing on a number of different platforms. Please give it away and accept the majority decision: it's not as if we were demanding you to marry another gay. Please keep your nose out of other peoples' business

I fully support Jim Wallace. At the end of the day it's a bit like comparing apples and bananas. The banana says everyone needs to treat me as if i'm an apple but unfortunately a banana will always be a banana. Oh and 2 bananas don't make an apple either.

JR49,

"...The banana says everyone needs to treat me as if i'm an apple...."

This thread just gets more profound by the moment....

I would probably support polyamorous marriage, although I wouldn't recommend it personally. But if people are living that way, and truly believe it makes them happy, then their relationship should be recognised by the community, especially if there are children involved. If no-one is being harmed, what is the problem?

This discussion preventing gay marriage for the purpose of "protecting the children" is actually quite disgusting. How are you protecting children by telling them their parents are not equal to other kids parents? By saying their family is not as good as other families and that their parents can't possibly be as good parents as others are.

And to hear religious right-to-lifers saying surrogacy should be prohibited is just outright hypocrisy. My friends beautiful little nephew would not be alive if it wasn't for his gay parents bringing him into this world, and they are doing a fantastic job, much better than many other parents. I'd like just one of you to go and tell him that he shouldn't have been born and that his parents are no good. Because that is what you are saying so back it up.

"McReal ... Do you mean (by your second statement) that homosexuality is due primarily to environmental factors?"
Posted by Beaker, Tuesday, 5 June 2012 1:16:52 PM

No. there is no evidence that homosexuality is due to environmental factors or has a genetic basis, though it seems to be congenital (something a child is born with).

Many things are congenital yet not genetic.

There have been a number of hypotheses about homosexuality to do with androgen/testosterone receptors in the brain; the role of immune factors against those receptors or the hormones, etc, etc. None of those hypotheses provide a universal answer.
.............................................

"In what way do you consider our discussion to be relevant to the same-sex marriage debate?"

As homosexuality seems to have an innate psycho-biological basis in almost all cases, and is only a sexual orientation, it seems reasonable to not deny homosexuals the opportunity to function as care-givers, including for children.

Meanwhile of course most of the real problems in the world are generated by heterosexual males, both married and unmarried, particularly unmarried.

Most of the worlds "domestic" violence is committed by heterosexual males. In the Western world it used to be sanctioned by both the State and the Church. It was supposed to be "impossible" for a mnarried man to rape his wife - he was only exercising his "conjugal rights". What he did (however horrendous) to his wife and children within the "privacy of his own castle/home" was nobody's business but his.

He was even allowed under the "rule of thumb" to beat his wife and children to discipline them. Which is to point out that the he was allowed to use a cane to beat them as long as the cane was no thicker than his thumb. Anyone for the "mark of cain/cane"?

Most of the extraordinary number of pornography sites on the internet are put up by, and cater for heterosexual males.
Most of the worlds "sex tourists" are heterosexual males.

Most crime in the world is committed by heterosexual males. Both at the local and now ever-expanding world wide level.

How many heterosexual males have been murdered and beaten by homosexuals?
How many heterosexual males have been systematically verbally abused by homosexuals? Even to the degree of commiting suicide.

How many homosexual males think that it is "sporting" to shoot Black Ducks? Or to go hunting altogether.

How many "crusades" both ancient and modern have been generated by homosexuals?
Crusades to bring "jesus" and "god", the "one true faith" and "civilization" to the heathen savages.

How many "jihads" both ancient and modern have been generated by homosexuals?
Jihads to bring the "final revelation" to the "infidel" unbelievers.

By contrast all of that never-ending slaughter was (and is) generated by patriarchal "traditionalists".

"The belief that there is only one right way to live,
one right way to regulate religious, political, sexual,
medical affairs, is the root cause of the greatest
threat to man: members of his own species bent on
ensuring his salvation, security and sanity."
(Thomas Szasz).

The re-definition of marriage issue has very little to do with equality, as the past few years have seen all legal discrimination against same-sex couples in Commonwealth law removed. Something that even a few allegedly ‘anti-gay’ organisations such as the Australian Christian Lobby supported as an issue of social justice.

If one then looks past the innacurate mantra of ‘equality’, another agenda emerges. Michaelangelo Signorile (www.signorile.com) is a prominent gay American writer and a national talk radio host (He’s in the 2002 ‘The Gay 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Gay Men and Lesbians, Past and Present). He says: “…offer same-sex marriage for what it is: . . . a chance to wholly transform the definition of family . . . gay leaders must acknowledge that gay marriage is just as radical and transformative as the religious Right contends it is.

Opposition to re-defining marriage is not always about religion. It’s also a social issue about what is best for society as a whole - and the purpose that marriage actually serves. Anthropologists who have written extensively on marriage across many cultures and throughout the ages generally recognize that marriage is a relationship primarily designed to encourage the birth and raising of children. It’s about bringing up the next generation in a way that provides the best outcomes for children AND society, and it has worked for societies since the dawn of recorded history. Marriage is less about 2 (or more – let’s get really ‘equal’ now) individuals in love satisfying their needs, and more about providing stability for children and society once the honeymoon is over.

If the agenda of Signorile and others in the gay community is what is really being aimed for through gay marriage, then those who prefer families just the way they are should be entitled to a little more meaningful debate.

It’s a complex issue, and will there be agreement on both sides? Not likely. Will there be bigots on both sides? Absolutely. But please, can’t the rest of us discuss this in a civil way without hurling insults at each other?

Dear Captain K,

For centuries, the societies of the Western world
have shrouded sexuality in myth, taboo, and ignorance.
Even sociologists, supposedly dedicated to studying
social behaviour regardless of the prejudices and
obstacles in the way, did not accept human sexuality
as a legitimate field of research until after World
War II. Yet the fact remains that there is a great
deal of variation in the sexual practices of
different societies, and much variety, too, within
each society. This obviously has important and
far-reaching implications for personal behaviour
and social life. With the emphasis in our society
of individualism and choice - we should not be
surprised that different patterns of behaviour are
emerging with people wanting social recognition of their
choices and lifestyles. The question of procreation - today
is also a matter of personal choice.

However, as I stated earlier -
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 modern marriage
stems from this kind of ethnocentrism. If we assume that
there is only one "right" family form, then naturally
any change will be interpeted as heralding the doom of
the whole institution.

In today's society it is important to recognise, 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 family, like any other social
institution, must inevitably change through time,
in our society as in all others.

The question regarding same-sex marriage is not
a question of -"If" but - "when."

"Support for re-defining marriage is not always about equality. It’s also a social issue about what is best for society as a whole"

To a degree I think that from a practical sense the use of the term marriage is not a big issue.

My support for same sex "marriage" is mostly driven by the nature of many of those who stand against it. What's best for society is for the say that bigot's have over the rights and freedoms of others to be reduced. Not to say that all those who oppose same sex marriage are bigot's but enough are to raise my concerns and the nature of the opposition to same-sex marriage has made it a touchstone issue.

There are those religious or not who believe that others should conform to their morals even were there are no victims (or no more victims than there are with the cherished and supported institutions). I don't want society to be a place where they hold undue sway over the lives of others.

Given the mess that we heterosexuals have made of the concepts of marriage as a lifetime loving union the claim that same-sex marriage is some kind of threat to a cornerstone of our society has a very hollow ring.

I'd like to see the government out of the business of registering relationships of consenting adult humans, until that happens then whatever name the government uses needs to be available to consenting adult humans wishing to have that relationship registered.

If that raises follow on issues with the law then perhaps it suggest that there are some practical reasons for calling such relationships marriage or perhaps it suggests that the government is too involved in that part of peoples lives.

While the law and practice of marriage does not reflect the idea of a lifetime union with a requirement that children be produced it's a nonsense to focus on the gender issue forsaking all else about marriage that could be important.

R0bert

Hi Lexi - tks for your input.

Pls note that I have never said that there is only one acceptable form of family, or that everyone need conform to my ideals. There is however, enough doubt as to the long term benefits of depriving a child of one or both biological parents that it warrants very careful consideration. And yes, it is understood that single parent families will occur(usually as a result of tragedy), and that many of them do very well for their children - but there's a lot of research to show that ON AVERAGE, the outcomes are less beneficial FOR THE CHILD/REN, than if both biological parents had been around. This is the main point - we should avoid DELIBERATELY placing kids in less than optimal situations if it can be avoided. Redefining marriage is totally avoidable ...

It's a very emotive issue, and it would help all of us if the emotion levels could be dropped a cog or two.

Captain Kuhle,

I'm not sure that the issue of gay marriage and gay parenting is all that related. Gay people have kids, whether they are married or in a civil union. It already happens. So allowing gay people to have their relationships treated equally as heterosexual relationships has absolutely zero effect on whether they can have children. Talking about it just unnecessarily muddies the issue and is really just a ploy used by conservatives to deflect from the fact that they don't actually have a reasonable argument to support their opinion.

However, denying equal access to marriage tells children of gay couples, who are alive in society now, that their parents or family are not equal to others. THis factor CAN do damage to those children.

Jim Wallace is absolutely right in suggesting that, should same-sex marriage (SSM) be legalised, the polyamorous community would push for poly marriage.

Rodney Croome shows his nervousness by claiming that ‘marriage equality’ did not apply to the poly communities. As the author points out, it is ironic that in doing so, many of Croome's arguments mirrored those used against SSM.

Wallace correctly foreshadows that gay activists have an agenda "well beyond the current claim on it". Legalisation of SSM would have significant ramifications that have been confirmed by research and events here and elsewhere.

In fact, the homosexual movement has told a federal Attorney-General’s inquiry that it opposes any exemptions for churches and schools under new anti-discrimination legislation.

The strategy is to have the federal government introduce SSM, then to use planned new anti-discrimination legislation to force compliance on church organisations and schools.

The intention is to muzzle churches and require primary and secondary schools, and even kindergartens, to teach children about gay, lesbian, bisexual and transsexual lifestyles and that having two mothers or two fathers is no different from having a mother and a father.

"Jim Wallace is absolutely right in suggesting that, should same-sex marriage (SSM) be legalised, the polyamorous community would push for poly marriage."

They're gonna push for it anyway, and how exactly would this affect you? Would someone else's poly-marriage somehow damage your hetero one?

"In fact, the homosexual movement has told a federal Attorney-General’s inquiry that it opposes any exemptions for churches and schools under new anti-discrimination legislation.

The strategy is to have the federal government introduce SSM, then to use planned new anti-discrimination legislation to force compliance on church organisations and schools.

The intention is to muzzle churches and require primary and secondary schools, and even kindergartens, to teach children about gay, lesbian, bisexual and transsexual lifestyles and that having two mothers or two fathers is no different from having a mother and a father."

Good. The church has been pushing religion on tax-payer funded public schools for long enough. Would teaching gender equality be any worse than teaching about the violent crucifiction of a supposed messiah that may or may not have existed? Considering being gay is a natural predisposition, children who aren't gay will only be learning that children who are gay are their equals. They will learn that children with gay parents are also their equals. It won't, however, turn them gay just because they think it's ok. Children are taught that brocolli is good for you, but how many of them will actually eat it without complaining?

Captain Kuhle, I'd take the whole concern fot children thing a lot more serioulyif I was seeing the same level of interest in kids welfare when it came to trying to have a family law/child support regeim that encouraged parents to work together rather than the current winner takes all system that provides financial motivation to grab custody and minimise the kids time with the other parent.

A difficult issue but one that can be far more easily linked to poor outcomes for children but which seems to attract little or no interest other than from those parents on the wrong side of that system.

R0bert

Dear Captain K,

Many people hold the view that marriage is a bond
between two people that involves responsibility
and legalities, as well as commitment and challenge.
And frankly I can't see what all the fuss is about.
Children need a loving, safe, secure environment -
and they will get it from a loving committed couple
who want to have children. To me it's as simple as
that. The rest of the arguments- as another poster
pointed out - is simply muddying the waters and to
suggest that same-sex couples are simply not qualified
to raise happy. normal, children - is simply not true -
and indeed is a prejudiced point of view. (pre-judgemental).

McReal & David Corbett,

I don't think it is reasonable at all to wilfully deny any child the opportunity to be raised by both it's genetic parents. I'm therefore opposed to IVF/Surrogacy for singles as well as for same-sex couples. I also think it is selfish in the extreme for a woman to have a fling in the hope that she might become pregnant.

I also wouldn't mind if we ditched ARTs altogether because even a married heterosexual couple can choose to destroy excess embryos-the ultimate form of child abuse.