Celivia,

whilst I would see parenting as a selfless profession (or slavery as depicted by your comments!) I apologise for the personalisation of my de facto passing of judgement on your circumstance.

However, the demographic and social reality of choosing not to have children, whilst on the individual level seen as exercising legitimate choice, can, more widely, also be seen as a social abrogation of duty.

Therefore, my concern is about a society that values children less that personal comfort, casual & detached sexual pleasure or other consumer options. It is my intention to lament the perceived (and actual) deficiencies in our society that prevent people from wanting more children, or delaying their consideration.

PS: I would probably like to be in Dana Vale's electorate, because the Seat of Banks is no bastion of Anglosurbia like Sutherland Shire

w,

one of my children might be a drug pusher or prostitute too, but, irrespective of any 'pounding into heads' (cf love filled nurturing) I don't think that would be a desirable outcome on happiness / health / holiness / or moral grounds.

Anyway, just who is 'living the lie' in these things boils down to most of us just wanting an easy - guilt free - life...and on that basis, why would I worry about what you think and vice versa?

Well, neither of us can be right all of the time? Anthropologically, I think I am basing my decisions on a better body of evidence, but with ART, IVF etc, the planet of Lesbokistan - burqa clad lesbians without the need for man - may triump and soon!

RC says:
* “Parenting is a selfless profession…”
RC, this is true, it is probably the most selfless and responsible profession there is, but not every woman is the motherly type and not every woman can handle the responsibility.

* “…can be seen as social abrogation of duty…”
So what? Do you suggest women who are not interested in having children (and I am not speaking for myself as I do have children) should have kids out of duty? What are women…breeding machines or persons?
The fact that women are able to have children doesn’t guarantee that they want to be a mother.
Newsflash:
These days, many women can do exactly as they choose, RC.
They might prefer to have a career without having to constantly worry about duties and children and childcare, or don’t want the financial pressure.

No one should be judging others for the family planning choices they make. You have six kids, a family in my cul d’sac have 8 children and the ninth on the way- well if that’s what they want that’s wonderful. But accept that there are married couples that don’t want kids, too.
I lament something too: a society crammed with people who constantly judge others.
I believe that if everyone is happy as an individual, the society will take care of itself.

I am hopeful that the future will look brighter for homosexuals now that the European parliament has declared that 2007 is to be Year of tolerance and anti-discrimination, and that the Dalai Lama urged respect, tolerance and the full recognition of human rights for all.

The pope however, still maintains his stand on the issue and is perfectly content when the churches offend homoseexuals; he even suggested that homosexual love is not as strong as heterosexual love. Oh please, honestly, what would he know about the love one can feel for a partner?

Celivia,

sorry, all the excitement of Peter Costello telling us the facts - that an aging population is bad news - combined with the fact that your family down the street & mine are statistical anomolies hiding the depth of the real problem...

You are correct to observe that we cannot force people to procreate, or even temper their sexual behaviour, however, this is one of the reasons why the State should value & promote the institution of marriage over & above any mere consumerist or lifestyle choice.

Similarly, 'happy' rapists and murderers, 'happy' animal torturers and speeding drivers etc all have their 'happiness' curtailed. Us "people who constantly judge others" are law abiding people who are making decisions based on an anthropological tradition that sees little merit in entertaining modern fashions as contributing to human development.

Of course, others like you who espouse "tolerance & anti-discrimination principles" ignore those when berating us 'bigots.'

In regard to the Pope's thoughts on love, I suggest you read his Encyclical Deus et caritus (God is love) to get the context of his thoughts. Human sexuality and love find culmination in married life and particularly children.

The point the Pope is trying to make is that the love of homosexuals is really like that of siblings or friends - one than cannot adopt the sexual element as being essential or ordered.

RC

"Similarly, 'happy' rapists and murderers, 'happy' animal torturers and speeding drivers etc all have their 'happiness' curtailed. Us "people who constantly judge others" are law abiding people who are making decisions based on an anthropological tradition that sees little merit in entertaining modern fashions as contributing to human development.

Of course, others like you who espouse "tolerance & anti-discrimination principles" ignore those when berating us 'bigots.'"

There is a very simple part of this that you appear to be unwilling to take account of. The idea of informed consent. Your happy rapists and murderers are harming others without that persons consent. Your happy animal torturers are harming creatures unable to consent to the harm. Your happy speeding drivers are placing the lives and health of others at unreasonable risk. Your happy bigots are seeking to harm others by attempting to unreasonably reduce their freedon to live their lives.

The basic concept is a fairly simple line in the sand. Sometimes it gets a bit hard to see where the line runs out on the extremities(those rare cases which get used as an excuse to ignore the basic principle) but most of the time the idea is really quite simple.

If it is between consenting adults and others are not unreasonably harmed by it then it really is none of yours or my business.

R0bert

Martin,

Your use of Spitzer’s 2003 study carries the implication that so-called “reorientation therapy” is accepted as valid by a substantial proportion of the medical and psychological professions. There is virtually zilch evidence that this is the case and a lot against, and just about the only groups claiming otherwise are evangelical Christians (who have ideological, rather than scientific reasons for their claims) and an American group called NARTH, who despite their claims of being an organization for research do not appear to have generated any peer review studies supporting their position in all their years of existence. There are many damning critiques of Spitzer’s study. A good start if you’re interested can be found on http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_spit.htm , which takes a more balanced religious point of view than many. Spitzer himself has expressed disquiet about the ways his findings have been misrepresented.

Any examination of the issue has to separate the phenomena of intrinsic orientation, sexual behavior, and sexual identity, which do not have a one on one on one relationship. The assumption that sexual orientation is fixed for all people throughout their lives may well be true for many, but is by no means universal. This does not imply that it’s malleable by “therapy”.

Philo,

I wish your friend (and his bride) all the best. It is not at all uncommon for people with a primarily homosexual orientation to marry and function as best they can heterosexually (in fact it used to be the norm here and still is in many societies). No doubt his acting skills will be very useful. We all make compromises in our life’s journey. The question is, just because some people make those choices, why should pressure be put on others to follow suit?

RC,

“Happy rapists, murderers, (etc)” are curtailed because they harm others. This is morality basic to every functioning society. Homosexual don’t (at least any more than heterosexuals). “Anthropological tradition”, whatever that might be, is not the be all and end all of how we should live our lives. Which of your ancestors subscribed to internet chat forums?

R0bert,
“There is a very simple part of this that you appear to be unwilling to take account of. The idea of informed consent.”

The hard bit here is what is ‘informed’ and how does one measure / compare such?

“harming others without that persons consent.”

Consent to murder? Are we talking assisted euthanasia? Consenting to harm might be valid for soldiers or terrorists perhaps? Suicide as a form of informed consent?

“harming creatures unable to consent to the harm.”

Are we talking embryos and the unborn here too or just ‘lower order’ beasties?

“placing the lives and health of others at unreasonable risk.”

Need we comment on the widespread scientific evidence about hepatitis, HIV/AIDS.

“harm others by attempting to unreasonably reduce their freedon to live their lives.”
“If it is between consenting adults and others are not unreasonably harmed by it then it really is none of yours or my business.”

It looks like ‘unreasonably reduce/ harmed” is also a wide beach with plenty of sand – protecting marriage or heterosexual behaviour from becoming merely a form of behaviour, rather than the norm, is pretty important, to me, the State and the species.

Freedom, like truth, is one of those biggies, but, even if you have the freedom to ignore societal norms, does that mean that we who discriminate about what we feel is or should be acceptable, should be forced to accept a minority view?

Snout,

“are curtailed because they harm others. This is morality basic to every functioning society."

What is the harm restricted to? Physical harm, or more widely to include concepts such as the mores of a society etc? Liberated sexual behaviours, with homosexuality at the vanguard, could be seen as harmful in comparison to traditional marriage.

Anthropological tradition, which includes basic concepts such as communication, social interaction, development of behaviours and law etc influences how we should live our lives. Internet chat forums are merely a means in furthering the end – a civilised society. Just imagine if we had to engage our arguments by undemocratic means of ‘whose muscle is greater.’