Lots of debate on these articles about the what constitues a 'family'. Take for example dictionary.com's defintion;

'A fundamental social group in society typically consisting of one or two parents and their children'.
'Two or more people who share goals and values, have long-term commitments to one another, and reside usually in the same dwelling place'.

So no mention of sex there. I have two real problems with 'traditional' views of families;

1. As a man in a heterosexual marriage, with no children, am I not in a family? Do I have to have a child to assume that responsibility?

2. Why do people feel so threatend by gay marriage? I do not feel the 'insitution' of marriage to be under threat in any way. Surely the concept of marriage would be strengthend if people could marry however the want, regardless of sexuality.

Just my opinion.

WHAT ME MIGHT EXPECT AS A RESPONSE!!!!!!!!!!!

"Gay people are not good enough to be part of a family. People with HIV/AIDS do not have the right to take part in society. Ive learnt this from Jesus. He stood-up for the oppressed, which I choose to interpret as telling people who to love and why. I believe I am a direct conduit for the word of god, the doctor tells me this is schizophrenia - I call it intuitive bible study.

Besides which I have always felt guilty for my own homosexual impulses I had in the 1950s as a teenager and as a result I have dedicated my life to making gay people second class citizens. If I can't be gay, they can't be gay either.

Families are infalible safe-houses to social ills and even-though I am a Christian I will go on about how they ensure the survival of the species as if I have enough rational brain-cells to support scientific darwinism.

I refuse to change my attitudes to gay people, because frankly I can't be bothered and I am tested by change at the best of times. Also, by attacking gay people it makes me feel like I am automatically morally and culturally superior to a minority in society - without even trying. By the way I can find quotes in the bible to back-up what I am saying. I think page 50 says 'I am God and I don't like gay people and I am not politically correct and I am mighty and homosexuality is the biggest issue confronting the world today - don't talk to me about terrorism, poverty, the middle east and unhappiness until we have thrashed it out over homosexuality'.

Now would probably not be the best time to mention I have an anxiety about sex in general and think the modern world is responsible for all my personal inadequacies. But all the problems in the world are created by men having sex with other men and women who think they have the right to work.

I have to go now, I think that is God calling"

The family is the building block of society and as such should be allowed to develop, change, evolve and adapt, as it has done for time immemorial without a need for the government to define what a family is. The only reason conservatives and religious groups want a definition of family is to stop gay & lesbian couples, and any other minority who wants to call themselves a family getting any access to public money, and the left only want a definition so they can get access to public money.

From the view of a free society, if any group of people identify themselves as a family then that's great. It's no one else's business. But a political view, by nature, must be more practical. The most important reason for the existence of family is the raising of children. Children are the future of the world and whether raising them is done by married or unmarried mum & dad, single parents, blended families, same sex couples or whatever is immaterial (insofar as these families are raising children, whether anyone else likes it or not). Any government money should only go to help families with children, and the rest can go whistle dixie.

Ofhust. Isn't it good that we live in a society where we have the luxury of discussing topics such as the ones that surface on this forum.

If we woke up every morning wondering where our next meal was coming from, or if we were going to be blown up on our way to work, or fearing that the government was going to drag us out of our beds and put a bullet in our heads, then it would be pretty stupid to be worried about the rights of gays & lesbians, Chrissie lights etc.

I really don't understand the point of your post but by the feel of it you don't have much time or respect for people who believe in or worship God. That's the majority of people on Earth and their views are just as valid as yours, whatever yours may be.

Any attempt at all to define a "family" is an attempt at social engineering; it is just that the neo conservatives and others of that ilk are better at it than most.

The concept of a family resides in the spirit of the members who choose to idnetify themselves with whatever group they chjoose how ever it is developed. The laws and society will catch up with that notion eventually.

Inkee.

I think very few serious activists would question the heartache many gays and lesbians experience in trying to come to grips with both their status in society and recent debates about same-sex parenting/marriage.

Attempting to ease that pain, however, by endorsing some thoughtless social experiment where two men or two women try to play mum and dad is overkill.

Brian Greig asserts: “It’s not gender or sexuality that defines a family”. But in an ostensibly progressive society, I think it would be far more helpful to ask: “What is the best environment for raising children?”

Based on the overwhelming weight of evidence, the answer is clear. Children generally do best with both mum and dad in a relationship cemented by marriage. Surely then, marriage between a man and a woman should be accorded favoured cultural and social status.

To give legal recognition to same-sex marriage would constitute a public, official endorsement of the following extraordinary claims: that marriage is mainly an arrangement for the benefit of adults; that children do not need both a mother and a father; and that alternative family forms are just as good as a husband and wife raising kids together.

In this context Brian Greig’s references to “the Religious Right” and “Catholic Bishops” are mere distractions. It’s the replicated scientific studies – not some mystical leap of faith – which tell us that children do best in a household where mum and dad are married.

Take a look from a slightly different angle. The assertion that all family types are equal implies one of two astounding assumptions. Either there are not two different ways of being human – we are essentially, if not superficially, androgynous; or, if humans are truly either male or female in nature, the combination of both male and female characteristics is irrelevant to the upbringing of children.

Honestly, would all gays and lesbians accept those assumptions? We all know heterosexuals are divided on the issue of same-sex marriage; I’d be surprised if there wasn’t diverse opinion within gay and lesbian ranks as well.

In the final paragraph of his article Brian Greig says “It’s not the gay community or single mums who are engaging in ‘social engineering’”. Grouping gays and single mums together appeals to our sense of fair play and empathy for the underdog, but single motherhood and gay marriage are two very different things. For example, prior to relatively recent calls for gay marriage, few people would have seriously suggested governments should deliberately legislate to encourage fatherless families. Yet that is precisely what is suggested with gay marriage. Second, I think the vast majority of people have empathy for families where heterosexual parents have separated or where one parent has died, but such situations are generally regarded as a tragedy for children. Same-sex marriage, on the other hand, implies no sense of tragedy or short-changing of children – fatherless or motherless families are seen as an ideal.

One may well empathise with the painful position in which many homosexuals and lesbians find themselves, especially when it comes to the subject of marriage. But there’s more at stake than the narrow interests of radical elements within the gay rights movement.

As I have written elsewhere, “if people want to redefine marriage is it unreasonable that, out of an abundance of caution, they should first present replicated studies showing that same-sex parenting doesn’t disadvantage children? Shouldn’t the onus be on proponents of radical social change to base their proposals on sound science?

The fact that supporters of same-sex marriage have not produced such evidence leaves open the disturbing possibility that, for some so-called ‘progressives’, the interests of children are secondary.”

Hey cranky, I think ofhust was being ironic, anyway I had a good laugh, so maybe you should lighten up a bit too. As for the topic in discussion, I support Brian Greig wholeheartedly. Religion is just another excuse for social control - 'if you're not the same as I - you're wrong' such arrogance! A tolerant inclusive society is healthy for all. Duffmeister would have a divisive intolerant world - not healthy at all.

Heyyyy, I'm as light as the next guy! How's this for funny. A gay and lesbian rights meeting falling silent (with all the accompanying hand-wringing and teeth-grinding) because someone announces that 1994 is going to be the "International Year of the Family"? Now that is absolutely hilarious!

The Gays indulge themselves too much in their perceived oppression.

Hetrosexual marriage is on average the most balanced way to rear children.Stop wearing you're sexuality like some badge of honour.We are sick to death of both your rights and unbridled sexuality being used to beat us into submission.

Doesn't anyone else get tired of the fact that the analysts and commentators about family policy, and research, including researchers themselves, are mostly men? Men, who are mostly missing from families, except as figureheads of masculinity, not as active, participating family members. They do the least amount of work within the home, regardless of whether the mother works outside the home, or not. When they don't live with their children, many men take extreme and often intinidating action to reduce their child support payments, if they pay at all.

We live in a predominantly heterosexual, male-dominated world, but how is it working for us?

There is global conflict on a mass scale, militarily, politically and economically. Never before have so little people had so much, while vast populations exist on next to nothing.

The statistics of violence against women and children is worsening, and it is an accepted fact that sexual violence towards children occurs mostly in their own homes, by heterosexual male family members, be they fathers, uncles or grandfathers, or stepfathers.
Child abuse makes the traditional concept of family as a safe place to be pure, unadulterated hogwash.

The more open the concept of family, the better, as far as I'm concerned.

I agree with Oceangrrl, I grew up in a family that would have the nod of approval from the conservatives/religious. My parents were married till death parted them. Yep, dad died from a cerebral hemorrhage after drinking himself to death but not before he gambled away our home. Hardly ever saw him sober, didn't want to see when he was drunk. So much for the father figure. The only type of family which counts is one where the members love, respect and care for each other.

Nothing wrong with poofs - just don't want my daughter marrying one!
Oh, and keep up the fine work Lawsie and Sammy!

SPECIAL for OFHUST. I sure hope for your sake that you are not in Victoria. Or, that this website is not having offices in Melbourne.

Reason. The Racial and Religious Tolerance Act of 2001 specifically condemns and outlaws such comments as Ofhusts. This was shown by the judgement of the Catch the Fire Ministries case, and I would WARN the likes of ofhust that these laws which were actually lobbied for by the Gay, Jewish and Islamic bodies works BOTH ways. We cannot (and should not) vilify or incite hatred against any class of persons. But the NEWSFLASH is.. it works for us also. If anyone even blinks hatred toward Christians in Victoria now, I for one will be after them hand in hand with the Equal Opportunity Commision. WE are the ones who have been victimized and wrongly stereotyped incessantly by movies, comedy shows and plays. But those days are over. Sure, it will take time and a lot of $6000 fines or 3 months Jail terms..but we will get there. And any "organization" which facilitates such hate crimes will be liable for a fine of $30,000. So.... how about we LOSE the 'Christaphobia' that is rampant in the gay media, and in secular journalism generally, and try to be more balanced. The simple fact is that evangelical Christianity will never accept homosexual behavior... not ever. We WILL however do our best to treat genuinely non politicized homosexuals with compassion, but always with a goal of reaching normality... yes.. I DID say that..'normality' in our opinion and faith.

Perhaps we would not be trying or need to define 'family' if it were not for the challenge from gay groups to 're-define' it in terms of their own behavour. I can imagine.. next we will have the Mormons demanding polygamy and the Muslims also, and of course now that CANADA has allowed Muslims to operate civil issues under SHARIA law, how long will it be before they ask for it in Australia also ?

Christian pastors have been JAILED as in Sweden for simply preaching a passionate sermon on passages such as Romans 1 and describing homosexual behavior in appropriate terms based on the text.

Who was being victimized again ? oh..thats right... (leave it to you)

RINGTAIL....lucky ur not a Brushtail or u would be roadkill :) kidding but ur ideas are rather .... er.. words almost fail me. Saying that Religious conservatives have the "If u dont agree with us, ur wrong" attitude ?????? wellllll.. when was the last time u heard a Gay or Left winger describe 'those who disagree with them, and who happen to be Christians as "Bible Bashing, Pulpit pounding, Schitzoids." ???? Well to be honest...I havent heard that exact description, but there are plenty out there just like it ! or close to it. What u said (like the RRT ACT) applies BOTH ways, so just get over the fact that there are actually very sane, balanced individuals out there who don't actually hold the same view as you !

Here is VICTIMIZATION.....
2 Pastors run a seminar. IN THEIR OWN CHURCH !!!! Its about Islam. The Islamic Council if Victoria gets word of this, and they, along with the Equal Opportunity Commission, for whom one May Halou works (she was working for BOTH EOC and the ICV) collude to send some spies along to 'entrap' the Pastors using the new weapon of the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001. The Pastors teach about Islam by reading from the Quran and relating from their personal experience.

One of the spies asks one of the pastors "So, how should Christians treat Muslims ?" to which the pastor replies "LOVE THEM" (All this is documented in the court transcripts.) so..they go away and tell the ICV that the pastors are preaching HATE !!!!!!. The case is reported to the otherwise unemployed EOC, who finds its not possible to reconcile the 2 parties. (Would u admit to preaching 'hate' under THOSE circumstances ????) The matter is handed to VCAT and the judge decides 'guilty' of inciting hate. That... is victimiazion of Christians in my humble opinion.

DEBATE ISSUES ON LINE
last comment for today.... if any of you want to discuss controversial matters ON LINE.. please join chanel #christiandebate on Dal net, IRC there are quite a few interesting people, including atheists, Muslims, Jews, humanists, agnostics, and even Christians of various flavors.. RC and Protestant there are even some American Indians
That chanel is very ISSUES oriened and at times quite intellectual, there are all kinds of professions and jobs represented there

Well, BOAZ, David I still believe that the only type of family which counts is one where the members love, respect and care for each other, regardless of race or gender. I don't understand your problem with that.

MORE ON FAMILY
Good on you Ringtail :) I appreciate the input. I dont mean to suggest that families which dont fit the 'traditional' mould of mum dad and kids are 'not family' but I would venture to reject any concept of gay marraige and gay family. This is purely a dogmatic stance, I happen to believe that there is 'something' to believe in, and for me and many others it is the values (and the scriptures themselves) found in our Judao Christian heritage. I think on the single mum issue, or single dad, I have all the compassion in the world, and see it as the Churches work to nourish and encourage such people who already have a difficult enough time of it. And yes. they are families. But for 'legal/social/cultural purposes, I would only reject gay marraige. I dont think there are any other possibilities except that in this whacko jacko age..who knows if some moron will try to re-define the legal concept in terms of 'me and me boa' or me poodle or something. The problem I raise for those who are prepared to embrace 'this or that' new trendy or current idea, is that it is based on moral relativism, and the only problem with that, is that u get 3 people and u will get 3 different ideas about 'right and wrong'. Usually the one most adamant about what 'right' is, is the dominant one who wants to control the available resources ! Why not join the chanel I mentioned.. there are some pretty cluey people there :) there is digwuren.. a systems analayst from Estonia, who is just brilliant with english, and though an atheist at this point, can hold a very good argument in a balanced logical way.

FEMINAZIS/COMMUNISM
I am absolutely seeeething with issues these days.. I want to address the gender/feminism debacle..and show how it was nothing more than socialism/communism by stealth, yet few would realize that. The left has a very definite agenda..and so does the 'right' ..fortunately I'm in the middle. (believe it or not) And if there is ONE thing, I absolutely reject, it is being moulded and shaped by wanna-be philosophers who suddenly think they have come up with 'why it is so'.

A study of existentialism and the pathway from "philosopher to market place" and more recently the same thing with Post modernism is a worthy and eye opening study.

Have a good one.
Boaz