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.