oh dear a Christian giving the rest of us morality lessons. How funny, you should concentrate on stopping the kiddie fiddling going on in your churches, before telling us how to live.

Many children do not have a father these days, only when conception occurred, many men are put out to roost when divorce happens as mother makes sure she has control and not the father. Marriages are no longer made in heaven in the hetero society, so two guys or women go for it if you want children, love is what counts

What rubbish!
This author hasn't even considered that gay also means lesbians.
Just think, two mummies for the kiddies! Wouldn't that be twice as good for the poor kids?

There are plenty of terrible mothers in heterosexual households that neglect their kids and worse. Being married to a man doesn't help that.

If two people of any sexual orientation can give kids a good, loving home, then I say good enough.
God made homosexuals, so I'm sure he won't mind....

Suseonline, "Just think, two mummies for the kiddies! Wouldn't that be twice as good for the poor kids?"

Apparently not,

http://thefederalist.com/2015/03/17/dear-gay-community-your-kids-are-hurting/

It is ridiculous to pretend that there are no downsides. Or as you do by going further to assert that two 'mummies' are superior to a loving mother and father.

Mummies will be provided!

Rusty.

.
Access to both biological parents, and their wider families, should be provided for all children; where possible, safe, and appropriate.

But the assertion that the mother-child bond is more special than the father-child bond is a hasty, bare one.
.

like feminism, homosexuality is all about me.Stuff what is good for the kids. Kill them before they are born if you don't want them especially if they are the wrong sex. Yeah secularism showing its true colours. And then you get the Susies and Cobbers moralising. Please give me a break.

If you were a public servant approving the adoption of a boy by two
"gay" men would you not be wondering if you could be dragged into court
in 20+ years time by that boy ?

If I was that public servant I would refuse point blank preferably with legal advice.

"Gay" always strikes me as an odd word to describe someone so obviously sad.

“Given these statements by gay men and children of gay households, would somebody please tell me how their words differ from these words of the Australian Marriage Forum's recent television ad, considered so outrageous by SBS that they broke their contract to broadcast it during the Mardi Gras parade telecast:”

It would surprise if the homosexual lobby and its friends had nothing to do with SBS pulling the Australian Marriage Forum's television ad, as this is typical of the bullying tactics in which the lobby excels.

It is indicative of the authoritarian homosexual lobby’s destructive influence on freedom that has followed legalisation of same-sex marriage in countries like Canada and the UK.

This supposed issue of same-sex marriage denying children mothers or fathers keeps coming up.

Whether or not a child has both a mother and a father is a matter of individual family composition and circumstances. It will not in any way be affected by broadening the legal definition of marriage.

On the other hand, broadening the definition of marriage has practical effects on social (and, still potentially, some legal) recognition. It will have no effect whatsoever on family composition.

These are not new thoughts.

The question arises: are the people who keep raising this 'if people can have same sex marriages then children will be denied parents of both sexes' so-called argument profoundly stupid, or profoundly dishonest? It's one or the other.

The question further arises as to why this stupidity even gets a run outside the halls of bigotry. If I were to submit an article arguing 'everyone must shave the right side of their head because cream cheese', I am sure it would be a case of 'we don't have the space to publish every bit of stupid tripe that gets in', and I would not be able reasonably to be aggrieved by not being heard (or, well, read). But this article is no less stupid. Why publish?

Marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman, so marriage between same sex couples is not possible.

They should work out what such a relationship is, and give it a name, and attempt to have it recognised by the society in which they wish to live, and on what terms such a relationship is recognised, including whether children may be adopted.

The attempt to arrogate the rights of a married couple to a same sex couple is unacceptable

Well said Leo.

That is exactly how I feel.

Same sex couples can come up with a word/s that means their situation, the word marriage has already been taken.

I spent too many of my formative years growing up/surviving all kinds of hell on earth in orphanages and foster homes, and would have just loved to have been adopted by an "odd couple" that showered me with all the advantages and natural affection, many of the detractors take for granted or their due.

And I dare say, two mummies; and or my Dad and uncle Ben, would have been far superior to none, or spending more nights than I care to remember, going to bed with a belly growling with hunger!

Or beaten black and blue from the nape of my neck to my ankles; and an almost daily ritual, followed by an ice water bath, in one of the religious establishments that provided some Christian care and education!

Sister Mary may have been a saint, but many who followed her clearly weren't and had ISSUES with all the male members of the population, even 7-9 year old boys!

So all you bellyaching bible bashers, get off your soap boxes and let those who truly want and will love and cosset otherwise unwanted kids, have as many as they can affordably support, with minimum standards!

A fortunate life, by A B Facey, ought to be required reading before trying to kill off the only fair dinkum chance some kids will ever have! It's all about the kids!

If you think that routine abuse is superior/doesn't lead to a life on the streets, get back on yer pulpit, and tell all others that you're truly sorry for Rhrosty's lot; or what the true Christian message is, and or, on all the available evidence, the one that said suffer little children to come to me, was straight!?

Sorry? Bah Humbug!
Rhrosty.

What a completely immoral argument and even more immoral that van Gend has made it before, so no excuses. It is immoral because it is built on lies and irrational claims.

"Therefore any law allowing two men to marry is a law guaranteeing adoption and surrogacy by two men." No people, straight or otherwise, decide to have a family independently of getting married. Getting married does not indicate that the couple intends to have children any more than it indicates that the bride is pregnant, and this is likely to be extremely less so for GBLTI.

Because most of us do not want children - not ever, marriage or not. That is 80-90% of us never ever want kids. And we have no fear of unplanned pregnancy.

"So-called 'marriage equality' forces a child to miss out on a mother or a father." No it does not. Force? For a start they have to have kids and most don't. And then the vast majority of kids with a GLBTI parent have both a mother and a father and step parents. However bigotry and stigma does break bonds when some family members reject GLBTI putting the kids second.

Van Gend uses stigma and discrimination to justify indefensible arguments full of gaps the size of the Grand Canyon. It is as if when I marry some little boy's daddy will die. It is patently ridiculous and is therefore immoral discrimination.

And why is onlineopinion publishing such rubbish that is clearly homophobic bigotry that doesn't even attempt to hide hate? Why publish opinion that is not grounded in reality, doesn't have a string of logic anywhere and is nonsense? Where is the editorial responsibility about the gaps in logic that facilitate hate? Where is your responsibility toward my legislated freedom from discrimination? Where is your respect for my biology? Where is your integrity?

Damo Thatsnomoon is right. Although I am opposed to gay marriage (as I don't think we should be sending bisexual people the message that spending the rest of their life with someone of the opposite sex is no better than spending it with someone of the same sex) there is no excuse for discrimination. Children are raised in suboptimal conditions for many different reasons — there's no good reason to single this one out.

I really don't care whether gay men or women marry each other or not, as it is none of my business.

If one of the gay couple chooses to have their own child with someone else, and the other parent is happy for the gay couple to raise that child, then what business is it of anyone else?

Very, very few gay couples will ever be able to adopt an unrelated child from either person here in Australia anyway, as there are very few babies put up for adoption, so that argument is rubbish.

The main problem most people have with gay marriage is because of their underlying religious beliefs or their homophobia....

I already related to this issue here: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16259#283589

I do however oppose the legislation because it increases the involvement of government in personal affairs.

All mentions of the word "marriage" (and all its derivatives) should be stricken off all legislation: marriages are not in the state's jurisdiction because they are conducted in heaven, not in Australia!

God just how naive are some people.

This whole push for homosexual marriage is simply about money. They are looking for the right to a partners super, particularly the hugely advantageous super for bureaucrats, & academia.

Change the laws of super to where it dies with the employ, & the push will almost disappear.

My mother was an alcoholic given to arbitrary changes of mood which made her harrowing to live with. She gave birth to me, but, as a child, I wished my parents would divorce so I would no longer have to live with her. The act of giving birth does not mean one is fit to raise a child. Writing of the 'sacred mother-child bond' is nonsense. It is theology brought in to deny choice in marriage.

I am a man happily married to a woman. However, those who wish to have a formal bond with another of the same sex should be allowed to do so and to raise children.

I vote we just ban marriage.

Draw up legal contracts for looking after the children.

Half of marriages fail anyway, and a lot of them just stay
together because of financial reasons and because they are
used to each other and too old to start again.

At the very least, have separate abodes, from the very start.
close enough so that the children can just walk around the corner to visit.

amazing how many judge marriage by their own failures. I guarantee you would ban all homosexual relationships if you used the same standard. Grow up.

This law does not "guarantee" that surrogacy and/or adoption will take place. What we should be doing is placing much tighter restrictions on different ways of "creating a family" to ensure that the best interests of children are always the top priority.

Hasbeen,

No it isn't. Some people involved may have originally regarded it as about money, particularly overseas, but in Australia there's very little financial difference remaining, and legislation to remove the rest would be far less contentious than legally recognising gay marriage.

Some of the comments about gay people are truly bizarre but Bazz's has to be the winner of the most ridiculous comment prize. Seems to me Bazz doesn't know any gay people. All the ones I know are quite happy and many would be even happier to have the equal right to marry their partners. To me it is people who make stupid comments who are the truly 'sad' ones.

Doctor Van Gend's argument is bizarre and confused. Citing the Declaration of Human Rights, he reasons...

"marriage is a compound right encompassing the dual "right to marry and to found a family" (Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 16). Therefore any law allowing two men to marry is a law guaranteeing adoption and surrogacy by two men"

Having read Article 16, Dr Van Gend should know it affords EVERYONE the right to marriage, yet his argument is that NOT EVERYONE should have the right to marriage.

Is he arguing for the authority of the UDHR or not? It seems he's quite selective about universal rights.

Or, if he reasons that "marriage" in Article 16 doesn't mean "gay marriage", then he should not claim it guarantees anything to two married men (let alone adoption and surrogacy, which aren't even mentioned in Article 16.)

"the word marriage has already been taken."

Sure, it already describes the union of a deity and hundreds of thousands of virgins in the Catholic Church.

No way can we afford to let it mean a union of two people. Can you imagine? End of the world scenario... Game over!

The problem for the great majority of gays who just want to be left alone and never wanted the State interfering in their private affairs is that a few arrogant activists, but largely feminists and leftist 'Progressives' (who presume to always know what is best for everyone) have hijacked the debate for their own secondary agendas.

The position of gays used to be that they rejected the staid uniformity, conformity and iron manacles that as they saw it, that blighted the heterosexual's marriages and common law (de facto) marriages. Gays enjoyed the excitement and freedom of an alternative lifestyle of their individual choice, without the State and its hirelings telling them how to run their lives.

However the feminists in particular and for their own selfish negative agenda, decided that gays could be the grist for their mill in challenging marriage which they resented as 'patriarchy' and wanted to destroy. Step one was to re-define de-facto relationships to include gays. Gays, flattered by the attention, foolishly went along for the ride. Now the public bureaucrats and courts tell gays the status of their living arrangements and lawyers make money out of their State-regulated break-ups.

It wasn't much of an exchange was it? Freedom and individual choice gone and for what?

The feminists and political 'Progressives' (a sly misnomer if there ever was one!) are now seeking to put the reinforcing rods and concrete in to formalise the state institionalising of gay relationships and lifestyles that they have wrought.

Never forget though that the feminists and 'political 'Progressives' have another agenda. They have NO liking for marriage and instead seek centralised State control of people. In their political machinations, gays are just useful tools to smack and hopefully take down 'traditional'(sic) society.

@onthebeach,

So the feminist lefty progressives presume to know what's best for everyone, whereas you *actually* know what's best for everyone.

Is that what you're saying?

Jimmy Jones,

If I did not refer to them by the words they use themselves I would be joining them in deceit.

Maybe you might listen better where (say) certain Labor politicians over-use the word 'progressive' to describe themselves and their policies and almost in the same breath refer to themselves as 'Fabians' or recent speakers at Fabian meetings.

It is astounding how many avowed Labor supporters on OLO have been ignorant for years of, then they deny(!), the membership of the Fabian Society by senior Labor figures.

You are, as a leftist would say, 'In de Nile'(sic) too are you? Why deny what is true and is so often woven into the speeches and policies of those Labor figures?

What prevents them from being up-front and forming their own party though? The same could be said about the educated, middle class leftist women who are feminists. The fact is that neither would want their ideologies to be scrutinised and voted upon by the electorate.

Then again the leftist 'Progressives' aka Fabians aka International Socialists do describe themselves as the "Wolves in Sheep's Clothing". Come to think of it, that could describe the present Labor leader.

@onthebeach,

Yeah that's all very interesting and it might even be compelling if I had a stake in caring one way or the other, but the gist of my comment was that you seemed to be suggesting it's you who knows what's best for everyone.

Jimmy Jones,

As someone who has an oar in as well, you could apply that comment to yourself.

Now would you like to contribute something to the thread?

BTT