Dear JBennett,

Anyone with the brain of a fly - hmmmmm? I guess you'd know more about that than I would.

Open slather on the adoption of children? Where do you get your facts? What evidence do you have that all same sex couples want children? I didn't realize that adopting a child was such an easy matter. Isn't every child up for adoption at risk in some way? What guarantees are there that a heterosexual couple are going to make good parents?

And calling a spade a spade? Well, there are all sorts of spades.
There's scoops, bails, and shovels. Or do you mean 'spades' as in
playing cards? Ace, king, queen, joker, jack, or knave?

Lighten up a little JB - It's a New Year just around the corner... Make a fresh start - you'll live longer. (And leave the flies alone).

Foxy yes open slather on the adoption of children. If the law pretended that a homo couple were married wouldn't it logically flow that the kids right to a mum and dad whenever possible would be lost? How can the law say that a homo couple are the equivalent of a normal married couple but then not indulge them with kids? I don't think all same sex couples want children and every child up for adoption is at risk in some way but that doesn't mean that we need to ignore an obvious risk. We can't guarantee anything positive but the least we can do for the kids is meet their need for a mum and dad and if we can't give them that but are happy to give them to a homo couple who seem nice they might as well stay with the nice staff at the adoption agency. They might work there because they love the kids.

"And leave the flies alone"

They do say they spread disease so we should keep them zipped up.

About 10% of the population is believed to be predominantly homosexual, although most of these people also have some heterosexual experience and many actually marry. The great majority of gay men and lesbian women, however, form stable, long-lasting relationships with a person of the same sex at some time in their lives.

Changing attitudes have made these unions far more socially acceptable than in the past, and in fact, some churches are now performing weddings for gay couples, although these marriages have no legal force.

A more significant change, perhaps, is the willingness of many courts to grant custody of children to a gay parent - usually the mother. In some cases, families with two gay adults are created, usually when a divorced lesbian mother forms a relationship with another woman.

For several years, moreover, social welfare agencies in large cities have been placing orphaned or runaway gay teenage boys - who are unwelcome in heterosexual foster homes in the custody of gay males, usually couples.

One interesting possibility, incidentally, is suggested by the rapid advances in the availability and technology of artificial insemination: if they so choose, lesbian women may be able to become mothers without having had an heterosexual relationships at all.

What is happening is that there is an increasing tolerance of a variety of alternative marriages and family styles. The reasons are linked, primarily to the nature of modern Australia as a postindustrial society. A hallmark of which is its economic and cultural diversity, combined with a highly developed sense of individualism.

In this environment, people tend to make decisions about marriage, divorce, abortion, child-rearing, and the like in terms of what they, personally, want rather than in terms of traditional moralities, obligations to kin, or the other impersonal pressures that previous generations unquestioningly accepted. Pursuing their own vision of self-fulfillment, or responding to the social and economic predicament in which they find themselves, many Australians are modifying the family system to suit their individual needs.

Foxy,

"The great majority of gay men and lesbian women, however, form stable, long-lasting relationships with a person of the same sex at some time in their lives."

Do we have some stats on this and can we clarify some timelines here (ie: long-lasting ie more than 10 minutes?)

Those genralisations aside, the other ones you make are spot on:

"a highly developed sense of individualism...In this environment, people tend to make decisions about marriage, divorce, abortion, child-rearing, and the like in terms of what they, personally, want rather than in terms of traditional moralities, obligations to kin, or the other impersonal pressures that previous generations unquestioningly accepted. Pursuing their own vision of self-fulfillment, or responding to the social and economic predicament in which they find themselves, many Australians are modifying the family system to suit their individual needs."

This was why marriage was traditionally afforded special terms as it creates a social order that is productive in more ways that one!

Since the introduction of de facto recognition, no fault divorce etc, the 'special terms' are no longer an advantage solely for traditional families. We are now only starting to see some of the indirect costs of this scenario such as, for example, the explosion in child sexual abuse.

Marriage ain't perfect, but 'liaise affair' lifestyles have unforseen costs too.

"We are now only starting to see some of the indirect costs of this scenario such as, for example, the explosion in child sexual abuse."

Reality Check. I don't believe there is an explosion in child sexual abuse.

Child sexual abuse has always been rampant. The difference now is that children are encouraged to speak up rather than remain silent and ashamed. Many parents (though not all) are also more observant and less naive.

I can assure you that in the 40's, in my region, where conventional marriages were the norm, paedophiles were also rampant, often disguised by their good and religious deeds, their own respectable family and their standing in the community where the naivety of parents was well and truly exploited by these fiends.

However, like most predators of any species, paedophiles prefer to exploit the more vulnerable in society and some children are more vulnerable than others, a result of trusting or frequently absent guardians.

Denying couples equal rights because of the gender of their partner, or moralising over who has consensual, adult sex with whom, reveals that we have not yet evolved into a tolerant society or developed a maturity befitting of the 21st century.

Foxie even homos admit they are about 2.4% not 10% see your other forum. With Mardi Gras and constant bombardment of pro-gay stuff in the media that might change but to date the numbers are nothing like that.

”In this environment, people tend to make decisions about marriage, divorce, abortion, child-rearing, and the like in terms of what they, personally, want” “Pursuing their own vision of self-fulfillment, or responding to the social and economic predicament in which they find themselves, many Australians are modifying the family system to suit their individual needs.”

Exactly correct but that highlights a problem because marriage is a public institution that relates to children and can never be just about self-fulfilment. Kids cannot be allowed to be victims. Kids aren’t commodities. Gay marriage is an ugly thing.

”Denying couples equal rights because of the gender of their partner, or moralising over who has consensual, adult sex with whom, reveals that we have not yet evolved into a tolerant society or developed a maturity”

Dickie if that were what was being discussed then you might be right but the issue is not denying rights but instead denying wrongs and not giving the wrongs the force of law. The who has sex with whom thing is totally irrelevant because noone is calling for homosexuality to be outlawed. But kids need to be protected. Homos just keep trying to shut people up from telling the truth by calling anyone who disagrees with them homophobic and writing off any opposition as religious nutters or accusing them of being interested in what homos do in the bedroom. If that dishonesty works their wrongs will be considered rights by the law even if thinking members of the public know it is wrong.

Gay marriage is ugly enough for kids but is anyone game to face the issue that homos next step after marriage/adoption may be to change the catch cry from consenting adult to consenting person including children? Sure no mainstream activist will own up to it but they used to deny they would seek gay marriage.