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?