The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Learning from the past and understanding the present > Comments

Learning from the past and understanding the present : Comments

By Sven Trenholm, published 26/9/2017

The balance of evidence from the strongest research, with large representative sampling, does not support same-sex parenting.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All
Diver Dan,

I think you are stretching things a little here, to no useful purpose.
A very common argument put forward by the "No" camp is that same sex marriages would specifically deprive children of parenting by one or another gender. So does life, all too often. Gay partnerships happen too, "banning" them on the basis that children will lack a certain type of parent will not solve the problem of fatherless or motherless children. They are not orphans at all till they lose both parents.

I do not propose that gay parents are "needed. I'm stating as documented fact that they are doing so now anyway. Their children might be step children to one partner (common in many families), Their children may be adopted, they might have taken on the children of close relatives now deceased or unable. What of it?

Banning gays from marrying does nothing to address children lacking a specific sex parent in the greater community. Legalising it may provide greater stability in those instances where it is already happening, and in future instances that are likely to occur at a similar rate as present.

Too many children are currently successfully raised by non-biological parents for your quibble to matter. Gays may *be* the extended family and entirely as eligible and fit as any others to fill the role. Pretending they cannot and will not is not meaningful when they can and do. All it can do is artificially limit recognition and services that might otherwise help, hardly a noble goal.
Posted by Rusty Catheter, Tuesday, 26 September 2017 10:15:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
When the no case is reduced to fear mongering BS? And conflated to include meaningless hypotheticals that may never ever happen?

And never ever as a result of a small change in the law, to essentially make it say, what it said for nigh on a hundred years, before John Howard had it amended in 2004!

As for the endlessly conflating No's?

They've not only lost the plot, but the civil and oh so courteous debate.

I was raised by a part time single mum and spent 3 years in a orphanage, when she nearly died. Then at other intervals, numerous 6-12 months terms, in various foster homes, where I was at times exposed to unbelievable violence and abuse.

Abuse that included daily floggings and knock down knuckle sandwiches and worse, That only stopped with exhaustion; from "normal hetrosexuals" and extremely devout (fine, upstanding and perpetually pious) christians.

In truth, during those times, the only genuine kindness and care that I remember, came from, despised gays. None of who, would qualify as hated peadophiles.

Row, row, (Rant, rant, rant) your boat, scurrilously up the sewer, life is but a, nightmare [reeducation camp for those who resist and refuse the medieval stone age, flat earth, fact and evidence free, brainwashing and its hellbound aftermath!]

Bring on the next election.
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Wednesday, 27 September 2017 7:00:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
RC

You have highlighted the absurdity of tolerating homosexual normalcy.
Posted by diver dan, Wednesday, 27 September 2017 7:12:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I disagree Dan,

I have pointed out that even by your proposed mechanism of raising orphans by blood relatives, child raising by gay couples is happening and unavoidable.

What you have failed to do is demonstrate that something that already happens is somehow unable to happen. You have also failed to show that banning gay marriage will prevent children from lacking one-or-another sex parent. Since such cases occur, complaining about one of many remedies as if it was a cause is pointless. Providing frameworks to support children regardless of the family situation would be far more fruitful. Don't tell us what you refuse to do to help, tell us what you will do to assist.
Posted by Rusty Catheter, Wednesday, 27 September 2017 9:05:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Rusty,

That sounds like it hurts :)

De facto couples already raise children, perhaps as happily as married couples do. Do their children suffer any legal impediments ? Are they at any sort of legal disadvantage ?

If couples, hetero or homo, want to live together without marrying, perhaps 'inheriting' children from the existing or previous marriage of one or both, then what are the legal impediments to their doing so ? Are there any ? What advantages would marriage confer ?

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Wednesday, 27 September 2017 4:48:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Loudmouth,

Don't get the wrong end...

The thread started with an analysis (post hoc) allegedly showing children of same sex couples were marginally worse off than those of idealised biological parents.

Perhaps so, but so what?

All the families you mention, plus gays, are raising children now and are acceptable (indeed unavoidable) under long-established Australian law. Any disadvantages they may have are not sufficient grounds to ban them. In any case, few anti-SSM campaigners are falling over themselves to demand legislation that will unstintingly support and assist such to reduce the disadvantage.

Conflating gay marriage with diminished outcomes for childraising, rather than *other* more broadly applicable known causes is simply bogus. Since denying marriage to gays contains no mechanism to improve the lot of children generally, the welfare of such children is hardly an argument against gay marriage.

We supposedly support the idea that people should enjoy as much personal liberty as possible, consistent with avoiding overt harm to others, indeed we tolerate quite a bit of risk and harm rather than curtail some "freedoms". There is *no* harm to others in making marriage available to gays, and hence no reasonable argument to deny that freedom. Once married, those gay couples that raise children can enjoy the certainty of unfettered access to family resources in the event of death, as do married couples now, and freedom from the possibility of a vindictive next-of-kin deliberately "taking over" and disrupting their family arrangements.

Those that feel "harmed" by losing the right to interfere in other's lives can with all due respect go to hell.
Posted by Rusty Catheter, Wednesday, 27 September 2017 10:29:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy