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.