DavidJS and others of the gay community

Here is the irony - the gay community is actually more intolerant of those who oppose it than than who oppose it are of the gay community. Why do I say this? Because you cannot handle groups like the AFA, and any other like minded people, expousing the views that they do. You attack with such vehemence, yet I do not detect that tone on the other side of the argument. And all this built on an ethic of toleration and acceptance!

Bill - what's his name - is right in what he affirms. Don't some people understand the meaning of words - especially marriage?

In the Middle Ages there was a philosophical debate between two schools of thought - Realists and Nominalists. Realism is the belief names express a genuine knowledge of real things. Nominalism is the contrary belief there are no fixed realities underlying a name. Names are linguistic conventions which can be changed at a whim.

apparently, most social reformers are Nominalist. The concept of marriage can only have meaning in a realist sense. It has always been about procreation and the transference of the family name and property inheritance. Two people of the same sex cannot produce offspring and clearly is a violation of the natural order for a species to perpetuate its kind.

Gay marriage' is an oxymoron. Homosexuals cannot marry. To be `married', the following conditions must be meet:

1- the ability to procreate
2- The transference of the family name
3- Property inheritance, and
4- Sexual exclusivity.

Two people of the same sex cannot meet these four conditions of the marriage contract. Marriage has always been understood as having a specific, clear and unambiguous meaning. But the bleeding heart do-gooders want to refine the term and literally turn it into a meaningless concept.

Homosexuals cannot produce offspring naturally and this clearly is a violation of the natural order for a species to perpetuate its kind. Then there is the right of children to be raised with both masculine and feminine influences. Fathering - and mothering - by definition can only be done by fathers and mothers. This simply cannot be accomplished by a homosexual coupling.

Homosexuals attack the family unit as `unstable'. However, the divorce rate for all married couples is one in 17 - not one in three as some claim. Homosexual relationships are less durable and stable as only five per cent of homosexual relationships last more than three years. It is not uncommon for homosexual males to have many hundreds of partners in their lifetime.

And some gay activists have the effrontery to say the nuclear family is a `violent' institution. Research shows the safest place for children is in their own two parent family. Child abuse is almost universally rare in such families. Further more, research shows the incidence of violence in homosexual relationships ranges from slightly above the rate for heterosexuals, to almost double in some surveys.

There is a right and wrong way to do anything - including marriage and parenting. When Ben Johnson won gold in the 100 metres in 1988 he was stripped of his gold medal because he cheated.

Homosexuals want to cheat on nature by insisting on their `right' to
marriage and parenting. If a person chooses to live as a homosexual, then they must face the consequences of that choice.

sincerely

Alan Barron

Dr Greg appears not to understand what argument is. Let me explain: Bill Muehlenberg has put his argument forward. I am disagreeing with it. That is argument. If I am attacking with "vehemence" so what? It is still only argument. I am not preventing anyone from legally marrying (unlike the Howard Government), I am not introducing any policies that would legally discriminate against anyone. I am not assaulting anyone on the basis of their sexuality or religion.

However, the AFA actively lobby against same-sex marriage and against gay men and lesbians adopting children. Christian Democrats have opposed the equalisation of the age of consent. Do the AFA and their supporters have any evidence where gay men and lesbians have actively lobbied to discriminate against Christians or to prevent them from marrying?

As for Alan Barron's comments, well unfortunately (for you) same-sex marriage and same-sex relationships are already a reality in various countries and we continue to make headway in legislative areas. This is inspite of your "research" (which is uncited). And we do so inspite of the active and sometimes violent opposition of anti-gay forces.

Finally, Barron's criteria for marriage would exclude childless heterosexual couples. What an insult to many heterosexuals out there as well as gay people!

Keep up the excellent work, Bill. I sure appreciate you and your well-defined "argument". You're not on your own Bill; there are millions who agree with you.
A few negative comments (that really don't make much sense) should not deter you and the AFA. Look what happened to Bob Brown and Mark Latham, both of whom wanted to fudge the family lines a little bit!
Please remember, you're not on your own Bill
Regards
Dr.Bob

It is quite interesting to read these posts and wonder how many of these older men (it seems) actually bother to ask the younger generation how they feel about this issue.

I am a 23yr old woman who is in close contact with people ranging from 14-30yrs old. I agree with "YngNLuvnIt". I too have observed the attitudes of this generation and the majority of people who seem to enter these debates are older men who mince fancy words and try to represent a generation that they themselves are not even a part of.... not wanting to sound harsh but it is true... talk to the youth of this generation and they will fight for the nuclear family. Every girl/woman I know has already picked out wedding dresses, thought about what he will be like, and they havent even met the guy yet. This is so common amongst the youth today, as was any other generation, I wonder if people have their eyes and ears open?

We need more men like Bill who will stand up and fight for what the majority of society is saying. Good on you Bill.

Dom, the sexest view you have put forward regarding coming home to a 'wife' is not at all what I believe Bill is representing nor suggesting. Family has not changed, people's attitudes towards each other and sharing in the family has changed. Most women want their rights to equality, in that we have the freedom to chose whether to work etc. But that does not take away from the fact that men and women are different and have different roles in the home. People used to box women into a certain role, now they have choices and many of them choose to be stay at home mums... why is that? None of this is the real issue, the issue is the nuclear family, not roles in the family... I know many happy couples where the man cooks etc, so this predated sexist attitude as far as I have seen is pretty much erraticated (I am speaking about in Australia, not some other places in the world). There is no need for sarcasm.... the 1920's and their sexist set roles are long gone, but the nuclear family is here to stay.

Guys do we all have to go to such extreemes in this debate??? DavidJS you must also see though some roles are long gone, we are not past the FACT that women and men are different. Eg. Most women are more the nurturers in the family where usually you would find the male mind to be mechanical and therefore better at odd jobs. (in general...every house is different) Women as equal guardians and protectors to men, of course women can be good guardians, I know many single mums who are doing so well. But none of them would wish to be single mums, they would love to have a man.... Again can I mention that men are physically stronger than most women (except body builders and other extreemes obviously and I am speaking generally...)That isnt sexist or predated, its how we are wired. May I suggest you read up on this, Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus could be a good start....

As for DavidS who said that being gay was not a lifestyle but 'is my life' ... I know many people who have been gay or bisexual and have later made choices to change. It is called a lifestyle because it is a choice. Check out Pavlov with his dogs, its called conditioning. Many people who profess to be homosexual/bisexual later settle down into a nuclear family and are happy. Yes, genuinely happy.. I have such friends.

stevedziedzic, a 20-21yr old male saying none of his friends are looking for marriage etc... surprise surprise. Bring out the Dolly magazines, this is what women have complained about for decades... most young guys want to be 'free' and experience life, but I give you about 5yrs or so and you will be wanting to settle down. That is an age old concern... the women complain because the men dont like commitment... but in the end, nature wins, the desire for a family kicks in along with the loneliness deep inside and oops there we have it, the nuclear family again, funny that.

If Bill has to 'adapt' and 'get with the modern era' I wonder who is in control of this modern era? Because I note again, that this generation, who by the way are THIS ERA... are often neglected in these debates... are after marriage between a man and woman... As a 23yr old do I need to 'adapt' and get with the times? Or is it you older men and other minorities that really need to adapt and get with the times because there is nothing new under the sun.... just because minorities make a little more noise now in the end, look at the biology books and figure it out for yourselves.

Dear David,
Why are you so keen to marry when marriage is an outdated and conservative institution that has its foundation in Christianity? I would think a post modernist such as yourself would be able to come up with something a bit more innovative to express yourself and your chosen lifestyle!
It amazes me that gays and lesbians continue to hanker after the trapping of heterosexuals. Get yourself a life!!!