Clearly the number of children deprived of a parent by heterosexual divorce is always going to be many times the number 'deprived' of a parent by gay marriage and childrearing; so if you sincerely believe this rubbish you have written, I would expect to see a much greater number of letters and articles by you protesting against legal divorce. Where are they?

If it's so vital that children should be brought up by two opposite-sex parents that you're prepared to sacrifice the happiness of same-sex couples for that purpose, then you should be prepared to sacrifice the happiness of opposite-sex couples too, surely, and force them to stay together in a state of mutual loathing and misery. Because of The Kids, right?

There are many loathesome things about anti-gay bigotry, but perhaps the most loathesome is the desperate attempt to pretend that It's All About The Children -- this from people who have manifestly never given a stuff about child welfare in their lives until it became politically convenient to do so.

I completely disagree with the premise of the argument, that it is:

"a child's birthright to both a mother and a father."

Even though it may be preferred, it is not the child's right. If it was a child's right, then divorce would be illegal and following the death of one parent it would be mandated that a replacement parent be provided. Orphans would be forcefully be adopted to married couples, as to not deny the child their "rights".

Now, back to the real world...

No amount of government regulation of our private lives is going to change the fundamental unit of the family. This exists due to the choice of individuals, not due to government law. Otherwise the only thing stopping you from leaving your wife to take multiple partners (male and female) is a piece of paper at the marriage registry. If this is the case, you have other problems to worry about mate.

Thank you for this article! How refreshing it is to see someone who dares to speak out loud what most people feel in silence only, because the media has made it so politically incorrect.

I used to support Kevin Rudd and his approach to government, but his latest attempt for political correcteness has made me change my mind.

thanks David for pointing out the obvious. Like in abortion however the most vulnerable come last. Man is inherently selfish.

Thanks for the article David.

To the commentator who says heterosexual divorce hasn't been taken seriously enough (for the position that it is all about the children to have consitency). I am sure there are those who wish they had fought harder against that social expiriment when it happened. I presume easy divorce laws just came without warning, and there has been many marriages left behind that may have been better to work on. Does anyone realy want another large scale expiriment like that? I am not looking for an argument, just making what seems to me a simple point. There are many who wish that heterosexual marriage was held in higher honour, no doubt David VG is one of them, as am I.

Sharan. perhaps i should get renamed as simple sharsn.

Thank you Jon J and Stezza for pointing out the painfully obvious and irreversibly fatal flaws in this "argument". It beggars belief that such a logically unsound piece of latently bigoted hogwash makes it into the national press.

Let's hear from someone who was raised by two lesbians:
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/08/6065/

And Sharan - there is nothing that says a bad law can't be overturned. So if the allowance of heterosexual divorce was a mistake, why don't we just reverse it? Let's put it to a referendum: think the Australian public will agree? As with same-sex marriage, I'm pretty sure the majority of Australians would vote in favour of divorce. I know it's hard to realise you're behind the times, but I'm afraid you're going to have to accept it (or catch up).

The fact that conservatives will sadly never understand is that change is the default. Always has, always will be. In this case, it is called social progress: remember there were those who decried the abolition of slavery and the granting of universal suffrage the disastrous end of society as we know it; should we reverse those decisions too? Exactly how far back do you think we should regress?

I fully endorse this article, one which stands up for children and their right to have a mother and father rather than accede to the selfish, hedonistic demands of same-sex adults.

Let same-sex adults live as they wish but let's keep innocent, powerless kids out of their mix!

There are many points to this article that I disagree with, but the main point is undeniable. Children require the influence and input of both adult males and females while growing up. I grew up in a single parent family and the lack of male input in my life had a significant effect on me, an effect I can clearly see now that I am older and hopefully a little wiser. I have no opinion on gay marriage, nor on gay parenthood - but there must be significant close caring input from both sexes in children’s lives. If this cannot be provided by the parents, whether homo or hetero, the question needs to be asked - am I fit to be a parent?

Ah yes, the Witherspoon Institute. It is an opus dei propaganda factory.
And we all know that the opus dei attitude to the human body, especially the bodies of children looks like this:
http://spiritlessons.com/passionofchristpictures.htm
Remembering that Mel Gibson was regularly thrashed by his extremely right-wing "catholic" father.
And that the senior members of opus dei practice bodily-mortification which tells us in very stark in-your-face terms that they are essentially psychotic. http://www.odan.org/corporal_mortification.htm
Would any sane person send their children to a school or church run and controlled by such obviously twisted people?

Then of course there is the horrific historical evidence of the child-rearing (really comprehensive psycho-physical crippling) of children via the old-time father-knows-best method(s). As described in these references

http://www.alice-miller.com/books_en.php?page=2
http://psychohistory.com
http://ratical.org/ratville/EE.html
http://zakherys.tripod.com/greven.htm

Thank you for your article David.

Dr Van Gend is right to remind us of our common duty to give priority to legal protection of the rights of children. As signatory to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Federal Government has an obligation to protect "as far as possible a child’s right to know and be cared for by his or her parents" (Article 5) and to protect "every child's right to have his or her identity and family relations preserved and respected" (Article 8).
To be motherless or fatherless is always a human tragedy. Injustice occurs when the State takes a hand in deliberately imposing motherlessness or fatherlessness on a child. For the State to endorse deliberate formation of a motherless or a fatherless family is as unjust as to set up structures that would deliberately deprive these children of hearing or sight or any other of the natural advantages enjoyed by the vast majority of children.
In compensating for the loss of a mother or a father, the original pattern of identity and family relations should be “preserved” and “respected”.
It is not a just compensation to replace this loss with two female parents or with two male parents. It is fraudulent, in the same sense as it would be fraudulent for an insurance company to replace your house that burnt down with a house that has two bathrooms and no kitchen or two kitchens with no bathroom. Of course the fraudulent replacement of a mother and a father with two mothers or two fathers is a far more serious form of cheating perpetrated against the defenceless child.
Australia has also ratified the UN Women’s Convention (CEDAW), and we are obliged under international human rights legal principles codified in this Convention to promote full recognition of “the social significance of maternity and the role of both parents in the family and in the upbringing of children”; and to enact laws that acknowledge “that the upbringing of children requires a sharing of responsibility between men and women …"

Every child has a fundamental human right to know and, as far as possible, to be cared for by his or her mother and father. Marriage is the only institution that promotes that interest. It is also in the public interest -- this is recognised by the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, Art. 7,9.

RitaJ you are cherry picking and twisting the words of CEDAW to your own agenda, one which shamelessly contravenes its spirit in the advancement of equality and human rights.

You omitted the final part of that sentence: "that the upbringing of children requires a sharing of responsibility between men and women AND SOCIETY AS A WHOLE". This clearly does not refer to the individual family unit, rather the expression that men and women are equal members of society as a whole, and that therefore both parents, regardless of sex, should have an equal say in the upbringing of their children.

In addition, nowhere does it state that we "must enact laws" to ensure this: that is your own (authoritarian) addition.

Finally, further on in the actual articles of the convention, rather than the preamble you quote, it states:

"States Parties shall take all appropriate measures...to modify the social and cultural patterns of conduct of men and women, with a view to achieving the elimination of prejudices and customary and all other practices which are based on the idea of the inferiority or the superiority of either of the sexes OR ON STEREOTYPED ROLES FOR MEN AND WOMEN".

But stereotyped roles is exactly what you are advocating; as I said, in direct contravention of the spirit of CEDAW. For shame.

Haha Raycom: do you think people are stupid and can't Google?

"Convention on the Rights of the Child:

Article 7

1. The child shall be registered immediately after birth and shall have the right from birth to a name, the right to acquire a nationality and. as far as possible, the right to know and be cared for by HIS OR HER PARENTS.

Article 9

1. States Parties shall ensure that a child shall not be separated from HIS OR HER PARENTS against their will"

Nowhere does it refer to "mother" or "father" - just parents. Gender neutral.

Hell's teeth, why can't those who try to intellectualise their prejudice (and are always destined to fail) just have the guts to admit that they don't like homosexuals/homosexuality? Please refer to this handy chart:

http://ow.ly/lIv4D

More of the usual dogmatic drivel from those who indulge in the delusional beliefs of both demented and perverted religions.

In the case of the catholics in particular, whose church is riddled with pedophiles, baby stealers, those who cover up for same and those who turn a blind eye, you would have to be seriously mental to give any serious consideration to anything that they say.

And what did we get from Pell recently I would ask?

"The dead guy told me nothing, RatSinger told me nothing, I never covered up for pedophiles and we are not any more responsible to the people we have harmed than any other corporation in Australia under Australian guvment law."

(which is of course to say, " I am not by brothers keeper.")

As the reality is of course, amongst those damaged by the perversion of the catholics who view scandal as a greater issue than the sexual abuse of minors, some of the aggrieved will need ongoing $500 per hour psychiatric support and possibly $100 a month medication and that's just for starters, thus a cap of $75,000 is simply grossly inadequate.

As for sexuality, its primary purpose is for enjoyment and stress release, though in my opinion preferably founded in Love. That is not to say whilst single I have not in the past been opposed to a quickie.

;-)

Propagation is a secondary consideration, at best, and more often what is more important is how to enjoy sex without producing children.

Same with marriage. What is important is a founding cornerstone of Love, not a male and female partner.

The perverted twist in this argument is that it is a question of what must be stopped (i.e. discrimination etc) not what must be done.

What some religious people need to get through their dim witted heads is that whilst they are supported to have a right to have their own view, that does not extend to an acceptance by the general population of allowing them to inflict their muddle headed ideas on others.

JP, can you offer an objective example for your argument, as the Witherspoon Institute is an American rightwing organisation; with a strong antigay policy.

Have to vehemently agree with Jon J.
As a child I spent most of my formative years living, (surviving) in foster homes and orphanages.
I would have gladly traded that existence in the blink of an eye, for a happy and stable home life, in the bosom of a doting same sex couple!
I dare say every Romanian orphan, living in death camp like conditions, would echo that sentiment.
And that goes double for some African orphans, who's parents have died of aids!
The Author, allegedly a devout Christian, pretends to care about outcomes for children?
Yet seems to allow a dark age medieval belief system to condemn hundreds of thousands of them, to a veritable lifetime of disadvantage and substandard lifestyles/opportunity, he would never ever accept for himself or any member of his immediate family; and that's just in Australia!
If there were any actual concern for the children?
Then this pious, preaching, pontificating, parsimonious, pulpit pounding, patriarchal pedagogue, would likely have just the opposite attitude!
Rhrosty.

Kipp - have a read of this article and see what it says:
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/06/5640/

JP, you are doing it again, give us some objective social research information.

Kipp - so have you actually read the article?

JP - I've read it, and as Kipp points out, what you have posted is the anecdotal evidence of one person. A sample size of one allows for no statistical representativeness whatsoever, and cannot eliminate or control for the idiosyncrasies of an individual.

Kipp rightly calls for objective social research, so here's just one study:

"Outcomes for children with lesbian or gay parents. A review of studies from 1978 to 2000"

It's a review of 23 empirical studies encompassing 615 offspring (age range 1.5–44 years) of lesbian mothers or gay fathers and 387 controls, who were assessed by psychological tests, questionnaires or interviews.

The headline finding? "The studies indicate that children raised by lesbian women do not experience adverse outcomes compared with other children. The same holds for children raised by gay men."

http://ow.ly/lIJO7

Article in todays Age "Samesex parents raising healthier kids"
www.theage.com.au/victoria/samesex-parents-raising-healthier-kids-20130605-2npx.html

Dear speegster,
suggested reading that may help.'
Same sex adoption is not a game by Rick fitzgibbons.
35 years as a respected psychiatrist. Written nov 2011.
Available on www.mercatornet.com.

Clear evidence = children are affected by ss parents.

Reading no 2
strained relations by bill muehlenberg.
A very disturbing read . Read it and weep.

Again same sex marriage will have negative affects on children
regards
phil

Kipp - in the study you refer to reported in the Age, the results of the study are based on the views of the parents - "lesbian and bisexual parents who completed the globally-recognised Child Health Questionnaire" not on the views of the children themselves. Further, the children were all under 17 and presumably still living at home.

Compare this to the study by Regnerus referred to in the second reference I gave you http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/06/5640/ involving 2988 young adults aged 18-39, who reported having a mother who had a same-sex relationship with another woman or a father who had a same-sex relationship with another man, compared with the outcomes of children who reported coming from an intact biological family.

You can read the paper itself at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X12000610

I would suggest that you too Spegster/Speegster look at that reference. The reference you give is only to an abstract so gives no detail -and refers to older studies, between 1978 and 2000. The abstract does say though that more studies need to be done and Regnerus study is very recent.

Speegster:
"Article 7- The child shall be registered immediately after birth and shall have the right from birth to a name, the right to acquire a nationality and. as far as possible, the right to know and be cared for by HIS OR HER PARENTS.

Article 9 - States Parties shall ensure that a child shall not be separated from HIS OR HER PARENTS against their will".

The relevant definition of parent in the above context is "one who has begotten or borne offspring, father or mother".

To accommodate same-sex couples, requires redefining marriage in the law to make it conform to the definition: marriage is the public recognition of a committed relationship between two adults for their fulfilment.

What is not readily apparent is the most serious consequence of redefining marriage: removing marriage between a man and a woman from the law eliminates the only societal institution that unites children with their mothers and fathers.

Kipp: "Article in todays Age "Samesex parents raising healthier kids"
www.theage.com.au/victoria/samesex-parents-raising-healthier-kids-20130605-2npx.html "

The heading is typical of The Age's misleading and deceptive journalism. It can hardly be regarded as a rigorous conclusion, as the full results of the study are not expected until September 2013.

Look at what the fatherless generation has developed into & now we have the motherless. How much more can we deal with because between the two we're now well into the mindless as well.
Something has to give & it's not going to be very nice.

You are out of your depth, Spegster. If you studied the travaux préparatoires of CEDAW Convention, you would not be misinterpreting what was actually agreed.
Regarding Australia's international human rights obligations, the ordinary meaning of 'parents' is still reserved for the child's mother and father. Our Australian government, along with other members of the international community, has promised to ensure and protect 'as far as possible a child’s right to know and be cared for by his or her parents'. The ordinary meaning of 'parents' is made admirably clear in the Convention on the Elimination of All Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW).
The formal human rights language of Article 16 of the Women's Convention links the term "parents" definitively to "men and women" and to "husband and wife".
Indeed, the human rights directive here is unmistakable: that governments must NOT introduce laws that promote the deliberate creation of situations where the responsibilities of raising a child are not shared between a man and a woman and full recognition is not given to the role of both parents (i.e. not just the maternal parent and her lesbian partner, or the paternal parent and his homosexual partner) in the upbringing of children.
Our government's obligation under the UN conventions is to protect marriage in "the ordinary meaning" of the term which at the time meant marriage between "men and women" , not "men and men" and not "women and women". The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (Article 31, General Rule of Interpretation) lays down that if a country wants to change a meaning then the meaning has to be agreed by all parties to the treaty. A government can't change "the ordinary meaning" unilaterally.
You are wrong, too, when you try to correct me on the agreement to enact laws: the language used is “States Parties shall take all appropriate measures” which was agreed to be a short form of the original phrase used earlier in the Convention—“To take all appropriate measures, including legislation”.

You are wrong, Spegster, also, when you try to dismiss as worthless the CEDAW Preamble with its agreement to promote full recognition of “the social significance of maternity and the role of both parents in the family and in the upbringing of children” . As far as your preamble-based objection is concerned, the first and most obvious rebuttal that needs to be made is that what is stated in a preamble is by way of foundation and motivation for the substantive content of the relevant document. Conventions derive their compulsive force precisely from what is stated in the preamble, as a building rests on its foundations or as a mathematical theory rests on its underlying set of axioms. It is precisely what is agreed in the preamble that enables the ensuing content to be asserted and agreed. To attempt to dispense with some part of the preamble is to weaken the foundation, undermine the legitimacy, and dilute the fundamental message of the Convention.
Your argument is also invalid as it is in direct contradiction to Article 31, General rule of interpretation of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969):
1. A treaty shall be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in the light of its object and purpose.
2. The context for the purpose of the interpretation of a treaty shall comprise, in addition to the text … its preamble…
The operative provisions within CEDAW (i.e., in the text) shall be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context (i.e., in the context of its preamble in addition to the text). Clearly, operative provisions must be read consistently with the perambular paragraphs, which set out the themes and rationale of the Convention.
Our obligation to promote full recognition of “the social significance of maternity and the role of both parents in the family and in the upbringing of children” still stands.

I think homosexual couples should be able to raise all the children they conceive naturally. No more No less.

RitaJ, those are the best researched and most useful comments I have read in many a forum. Thank you. It is encouraging to learn that the plain meaning of 'parents' was explicitly confirmed in the UN explanatory documents as meaning mother and father, man and woman. So much for the lame attempt to say that the child's right to the care and protection of his parents is a gender-neutral Caregivers' Clause. But the advanced dementia of our society is shown in how many people cannot see the blindingly obvious - that a child should know, wherever possible, her own mum and dad; the man and the woman who together gave her existence. That insight does not need the support of sociologists; it is basic sanity, and if we lose this insight we will be a deranged society.

Do spare us your bluster RitaJ, when the crown is a historically genocidal institution which even as we speak, deprives children of their liberty and locks them up without charge or trial for indefinite periods in circumstances known to produce adverse medical outcomes.

I could mention the illegal invasion of Iraq and so the list goes on.

You cannot pick and choose which parts of international law you support and which parts you do not. You are a hypocrite.

It was not so long ago when it was "lawful" for rock spider church nurses to steal the babies of unwed mothers as they too were deemed to be unworthy parents and even today, informed legal consent is not been appropriately taken from non english speakers in crappy little hospitals like princess margaret in Perth as they refuse to provide appropriately trained interpreters and refuse to provide translated documents.

Are you so ignorant to believe that we take you seriously?

The Regnerus study has been debunked - with the American Sociological Association formally condemned the study for being invalid in a brief to the United States Supreme Court.

In 2013, Darren Sherkat, professor of sociology at Southern Illinois University and a member of the editorial board of Social Science Research was asked by the journal's editor to audit the peer-review process of this study and results.

Sherkat:
"The key measure of gay and lesbian parenting is simply a farce...Regnerus admits that just two of his respondents were actually raised by a same-sex couple, though I doubt that he can even know that, given his limited data. Since only two respondents were actually raised in gay or lesbian households, this study has absolutely nothing to say about gay parenting outcomes. Indeed, because it is a non-random sample, this study has nothing to say about anything."

Witherspoon Institute and this study info at wikipedia with all the links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witherspoon_Institute

I have no problem with homosexuals adopting children, but I think there would be some pitfalls that might need to be watched for in the way children are socialised. If the adoptive parents are well engaged in the broad community that's not a problem - lots of role models, lots of diversity, but if they are principally mixing in the gay community, there could be some issues integrating with the wider community as they grow to school age, but I'm sure they could be readily managed.

As a father who can't claim to be any kind of exemplar, given the turmoil my children have had to cope with because of family breakdown and abiding animosity between their mother and me, I can only say that if the kids have a home they feel comfortable in and parents who cherish them, I reckon they'll be OK whatever the parents' gender(s).

The recent study showing that the children raised in same-sex households are doing well also found that the majority are raised in female households, so presumably they are being raised by their biological mother. This article is a homophobic beat-up.

RitaJ, Raycom and David van Gend:

WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

It is now bordering on the comical how blinded you are by your anachronistic bigotry and fear. So much so that you're reduced to engaging in unmitigated doublethink now.

Raycom states: "The relevant definition of parent in the above context is "one who has begotten or borne offspring, father or mother". Relevant to whom? Not to CEDAW, it's just not in the text.

And David van Gend congratulates RitaJ for pointing out "...that the plain meaning of 'parents' was explicitly confirmed in the UN explanatory documents as meaning mother and father, man and woman".

Really David? Where? Well, as RitaJ tells us "The formal human rights language of Article 16 of the Women's Convention links the term "parents" definitively to "men and women" and to "husband and wife".

Oh, does it? WHERE?? You do know guys that the full text of CEDAW is on the web.

Here's the handy link to Article 16: http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/text/econvention.htm#article16

Oops! Your convenient "definition" is nowhere to be found. As in, it's not there: YOU'RE MAKING IT UP. The blind leading the blind. Sad.

Phillip B, here are rebuttals to the Fitzgibbons article: http://fightthemyths.blogspot.com.au/2011/11/same-sex-adoption-is-not-game-or-how-to.html

And to fundamentalist Christian Muehlenberg's book: http://blogs.crikey.com.au/purepoison/2010/07/21/bill-muehlenbergs-evidence-free-guide-to-gay-marriage/

And thank you Progressive Avenger for pointing out the debunking of the Regnerus article. Here is a summary of that ASA's submission to the Supreme Court:

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2013/03/01/1657891/sociologists-scotus-parenting/

Here's the full text: http://www.asanet.org/documents/ASA/pdfs/12-144_307_Amicus_%20%28C_%20Gottlieb%29_ASA_Same-Sex_Marriage.pdf

Van Gend and his blind followers, why don't you all grow a pair and just admit what is at the base of all this: homophobia plain and simple, a profound discomfort with gay people and a disgust of homosexual love.

I'm done with this thread, because ultimately it is a waste of time. See, your risible views really don't matter: the law is changing, the majority of Australians are for it, it's happening right now elsewhere and will happen here too. Welcome to social progress, to the 21st Century: you will lose, so like it or lump it, because you can't stop it.

From: Mark Regnerus and the Storm over the New Family Structures Study at http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/10/6784/

In the less responsible precincts of the blogosphere, Regnerus was the target of vicious calumnies along the lines described above, one of which led to the opening of an official “inquiry” by the University of Texas at Austin, where he teaches, to determine whether he had committed “scientific misconduct.”

At UT, the policy in such matters is that the merest squeak from any party alleging misconduct is enough to trigger a preliminary inquiry, which in 60 days must determine whether a full-blown investigation is warranted. The university swung into action, doing everything by the book, at no little inconvenience to Regnerus, but at the end of August the UT “research integrity officer” concluded that no plausible charge of misconduct could be substantiated. The university’s provost accepted that conclusion, and closed the matter without prejudice to Regnerus’s standing as a scholar and teacher.

Interesting link JP.

It seems the study in question compared outcomes of children from families with either a gay mother, or a gay father to married heterosexual couples raising their own biological offspring and staying together throughout the subjects’ lives. I would predict the second scenario to be ideal, outcomes wise. This is due to the fact that if a parent were to "come out of the closet" after having children, it would most likely result in a diverse orr separation of the biological parents. Similarly, the experience of an orphan being abandoned and adopted by even the most perfect parents would still have negative effects. As a scientist, I'm not looking to discredit the study, or attack the researcher, but it important to identify the questions to fully understand the answers.

However the point is, are we going to deny parenthood to anyone who is not the ideal, perfect, lifelong parent, or continue to put up with ordinary flawed people who actually raised people like you and I? I bet fat people also have children with lower outcomes using this measurement. Also the thought of fat people having sex disgusts me. Also being fat isn't healthy. Is there anything I the bible about being fat? Gluttony? That pretty much covers all the arguments for the hypocrites! What say ye?

Some of the above comments confirm that it is the derelict state of natural marriage and the need for heterosexual couples to normalise their own chaos that accounts for much of the public support for same-sex marriage. Because our marriages have broken down, let's downgrade the institution itself to an irrational free-for-all. Because we have had bad parents / are bad parents, let's accept any type of parenting provided it is less abusive than ours. How depressing. As with past civilisations, it is only as our own cultural structure crumbles that the barbarians overrun us.

We have to repair and defend the city walls. In response to those who raise the scenario of an abusive mother and father and argue that it is better for a child to have two loving same-sex carers than a dysfunctional pair of biological parents I would say: neither option gives a child what she needs. We must reject both, restraining parents who would inflict abuse while also restraining governments who would inflict laws that normalise the motherless or fatherless child.

David nearly 50% of opposite sex marriages end in divorce or separation.

From David's post: "let's downgrade the institution itself to an irrational free-for-all".

It is already that. Any argument otherwise is plainly ridiculous. The State should play no role in this, but while it does, our SECULAR governments should not discriminate between loving partnerships between two consenting adults.

And this: "neither option gives a child what she needs".

So, NO amount of actual research proving children raised by same-sex parents are just fine will ever convince you, because you just know better?

Homophobe. Plain and simple. You should not be given a platform to spew this nonsense.

Dear David,

Thanks for your courageous stand and post.
It's simply amazing how fast these discussions with homosexual activists and pro SSM advocates degrade into personal abuse sessions.
Homophobe. Hater. Bigot, Fundamentalist etc etc.

THEIR OWN RIGHTS or OPINIONS justify the means they use to promote THEIR ARGUMENT.

Boys without Dads and Girls without Mums.
Grandfathers being the surrogate dad for 1 hour every month.
Sperm donors attending Parent / Teachers nights twice a year.
Sperm donors having 0 to 4 hours of deep and meaningful contact with their birth child twice a year.
We are being told it's all so wonderful. The children are thriving. 
2000 years of heterosexual parenting under a marriage institution tossed out with the rubbish as an old and out of date story and valueless institution. 

Out with the old and in with the new and to hell with the consequences. A Brave New World.

I remain Highly Sceptical. My wife is a primary school teacher and knows a boy in the school who has two lesbians as a mum and dad. The dear little boy has serious issues and problems.

His name remains confidential but of course the gay lobby will tell me it's totally unrelated to his current parents. Such a thought is of course "homophobic." ISN'T IT COSMOGIRL !  

As for the continued claim by the gay lobby that same sex parenting is equivalent.  What complete nonsense these claims are.

Let's all at least be 100% honest here. This social experiment has only just started.
The data to promote same sex parenting is sparse at best and is being manipulated to support SSM by the main stream media. It's very very early days.

Any objective assessment and fair reporting of these studies by the main stream media including and ABC has evaporated regrettably. 
JP's comments about the Age article are noted and supported. Refer page 2 and 3 of today's SHM.

"Children of Same-sex couples - Thriving " OH REALLY.

regards
Philip

CONTINUED BY PHIL

SAME SEX COUPLES self rating themselves. Is this serious?
Real solid data here? I THINK NOT.
Statistically Questionable? DEFINITELY
Objective?. NOT A CHANCE.

I believe we ain't seen nothing yet of the potential damage coming around the bend.

So a conservative and wise approach is to leave marriage the way is it.
This is the best and wisest approach at this stage. Let's review the UK and French experience first (in 2 years time) before Australia makes an irrational, emotional and poorly judged decision that has the potential to screw up the development of 1000's of innocent children.

What's the hurry. Guys and Girls.

This is certainly not all about Gays and Lesbians.

regards
philip

>>restraining governments who would inflict laws that normalise the motherless or fatherless child.<<

That would be all of them, Dave. Neither the Coalition nor Labor have made any suggestions about plans to repeal the divorce laws. I can't see them changing their policy on this matter either.

But that doesn't really bother you does it? Because your problem isn't with motherless or fatherless children or you'd protest as strongly against single parenting. Obviously it's not the absence of an opposite sex partner that bothers you but the presence of a same sex partner. Cosmogirl is right:

>>Homophobe. Plain and simple.<<

Cheers,

Tony

To Tony Lavis, above: No, your cheap shot is off target. I have always argued that any provision in law is wrong that would force a child to live without a mother, or without a father, irrespective of the sexual proclivities of the adults involved. The offense is the same whether it is single people obtaining a child, or same-sex couples. I refer you, for example, to a paragraph from an earlier article of mine in The Australian (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/a-dad-does-matter-to-a-child-whether-gay-couples-like-it-or-not/story-e6frg6zo-1226124001348)

"Obviously there are tragic situations where a child cannot have both a Mum and a Dad – such as the death or desertion of a parent – but that is not a situation we would ever wish upon a child, and that is not a situation that any Government should inflict upon a child. Yet legalising same-sex marriage will inflict that deprivation on a child. That is why it is wrong, and that is why all laws are wrong that permit single people or same-sex couples to obtain a child by IVF, surrogacy or adoption."

Again David you have fallen at the first hurdle of basic logical fallacy, in your case circular reasoning or what is formally known as "begging the question" (not to be confused with the vernacular usage of that phrase).

Your argument can put into basic syllogistic form:

1. Depriving children of its upbringing by a male and female parent is detrimental to their development.

2. Legalising same-sex marriage would deprive children of an upbringing by a male and female parent.

3. Therefore same-sex marriage should not be legalised.

In the same article of yours you quote, you write:

"...trivial arguments frame the gay marriage debate solely in terms of the emotional needs of adults, ignoring the child’s point of view."

But in fact it is YOU who has ignored the child's point of view, which leads to your circular reasoning. See your major (foundational) premise - that depriving children of its upbringing by a male and female parent is detrimental to their development - is demonstrably false.

That's according to the American Academy of Pediatrics' Committee On Psychosocial Aspects Of Child and Family Health:

"Scientific evidence affirms that children have similar developmental and emotional needs and receive similar parenting whether they are raised by parents of the same or different genders." http://ow.ly/lNd7F

And according to the American Sociological Association:

“The social science consensus is both conclusive and clear: children fare just as well when they are raised by same-sex parents as when they are raised by opposite-sex parents.” http://ow.ly/lNdoY

These multifaceted, expert medical and social science organisations have a little more expertise and credibility ON THIS ISSUE than a GP from Toowoomba.

Your entire argument is logically untenable, baseless and invalid.

False, Speegster. I never start from the premise you suggest, that depriving a child of a parent is "detrimental to its development". I start from the premise that such an act is a fundamental injustice and assault against the child, regardless of any issues of subsequent "development" in any trivial sense that the sociologists might use. I oppose the primal offense of violating the mother-child relationship; the rest is commentary. If you, and others, do not judge it to be an assault on a child's deepest rights and needs to force that child to live without a mother, then I can only wonder at your lack of judgement.

Take an analogy, to help you see how trivial it is to argue for or against such an offense based on how the kids 'turn out' years later. Imagine that a sociologist finds that aboriginal children stolen from their parents nevertheless do equally well in measures of health or school performance years later under their new white parents - does that make it OK to have stolen them in the first place? The original offense is the thing - not whether some dodgy study or other can "find" the kids to score well on some irrelevant measure or other.

If you think a mother does not matter to a child, then say so, and we can agree to differ. But don't dodge the question of this fundamental offense against a baby by diverting the discussion to "development" scores in older children.

More question-begging and circular reasoning David, arising from an extremely narrow mindset and flying in the face of authoritative, widespread expert opinion, rather than the straw-men "sociologists" and "dodgy study or other" you dismiss to your enduring discredit.

Why is it "a fundamental injustice and assault against the child", and why is "the original offense...the thing"? And how can you possibly separate the well-being of a child from its development, and expect to be taken seriously? It literally makes no sense. The informed and empirically sound worldview - unlike your own grossly limited one - is that:

"...the family has always been the basic social unit in which children develop the supporting and nurturing relationships with adults that they need to thrive. Children may be born to, adopted by, or cared for temporarily by married couples, nonmarried couples, single parents, grandparents, or legal guardians, and any of these may be heterosexual, gay or lesbian, or of another orientation. Children need secure and enduring relationships with committed and nurturing adults to enhance their life experiences for optimal social-emotional and cognitive development."

That's from the American Academy of Pediatrics' recent policy statement, the same one I linked to earlier. You obviously didn't read it, because you believe that your own biased, inexpert and singularly-sourced beliefs on parenting are worth more than the pluralistic and authoritative voice on child welfare in your own profession.

But of course, as I said earlier, this is all moot: the law will change here (as it has already elsewhere), as society progresses (as it always has). People last century were making the exact same points about interracial marriage as the ones you are making here (which led to the policy you shamelessly abuse to try and back up your point above). The question you need to be asking is: how will you deal with it when it definitely happens?

Speegster, one small point, unrelated to the topic. Society doesn't "progress", it changes. Some of the changes turn out to make it better and some make it worse and which you happen to think is which depends on your own priorities and preconceptions. They may change as time passes, although I suspect not on this matter.

Bertrand Russell in Morals and Marriage also held fidelity in marriage wasn't necessary until a woman became pregnant.

Today the choice of pregnancy is the woman's choice and that has fundamentally changed the relationships between men and women.

What nobody seems to understand is that the morality surrounding sex and marriage are the constructs of a bunch of celibate men from the middle ages.It was designed to accommodate the soicieties values of the times. It has caused the subjudication of women for centuries.

Today individuals, particularly women, are starting to liberate their sexuality and to question the male instituted morality. There seems to be great interest in developing moralities that reflect and accommodates the new sexuality. Sex is no longer just for producing babies and focuses much more on Freud's Pleasure Principle, particularly among now liberated women.


Marriage is about to undergo great change. It might not exist in the future as we know it now. Due to the changes in custody matters parenting may be shared without the need for marriage. It may be that one day it may be the norm, hence Russell's ideas about children and marriage may become defunct or irrelevant. Currently they are valid, but only just.

Why are homosexual people pursuing an institution that may be ending for the vast majority of hetrosexual people?

Those are the issues to me.

Silence.

What? Is the suggestion that the probable end of celibate male dominated morality too confronting?

Perhaps the silence is because you're a bit out on the notion that it was celibate men in the middle ages who set up the current form of marriage. In the 15th century there were ordained women, and in the 16th century only 50 percent of the clergy were celibate. So your point was?

You are obviously not familiar with the work of Augustine.