Roy,
You're perfectly correct of course.
SSM proponents can only win by shutting down debate and propagandising.
Hence the homophobe epithet, the push for “hate crimes” legislation and the 10% of the population
and gay gene myths, etc.

Sparkyq,
<<Being brought up in a SS environment will not make the children "gay">>
“a significantly greater proportion of young adult children raised by lesbians had engaged in a same-sex relationship (six of 25 interviewed) than those raised by a heterosexual mother (none of 20 interviewed).”
http://www.narth.com/docs/does.html

From the same meta-analysis of 21 studies since 1980 by two University of Southern California sociologists:

“sons of lesbians behave in less traditionally masculine ways”
“Those raised by lesbian mothers were also more likely to consider a homosexual relationship”
“Teen-age and young adult girls raised by lesbian mothers appear to be more sexually adventurous and less chaste than girls raised by heterosexual mothers”

Unsurprisingly, the professor of gender studies who authored the report had no problem with these outcomes.

<<How many children are there in Australia being raised by a single parent and "will never have the hope of the normal development provided (sic) exposure to a mother and father"?>>
<< There are also many Australian children who, for one reason or another, will never get to know one or the other biological parent.>>
These sub-optimum situations are usually not, and should not be, deliberately created. Every child deserves the best chance.

<<"Children will be artificially produce (sic) for deliberate placement into SSM's....." - This is just so stupid it doesn't warrant a comment.>>
You’ve never heard of SSCouples utilising IVF?

<<… I can assure you my partner and I would do a much better job at parenting and caring for a child than some of the "couples" out there. Why else do we need Child Protection Agencies?>>
We should allow SSParenting because at least it’s better than abusive situations?

<< Stick to the issue KMB >>
Are you suggesting that SSM can be separated from its impact on children?
That’s what you’d like the naïve to think.

Don’t obscure the real issue Sparkyq.

I’ll need to see a lot of evidence before I can believe the claim that the gay rights lobby is shutting down debate on same-sex marriage. And should this evidence appear, it will need to account for the following:

The opponents of equal rights for homosexuals get considerable media exposure:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/the-archbishop-says-no-to-reforms/2008/06/10/1212863623804.html
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,24850261-7583,00.html
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/choice-not-condoms-make-the-difference-with-aids-20090417-aa4u.html (the reference here is to “the sexual revolution” rather than specifically same-sex marriage)
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/12/23/2453837.htm

Adele Horin’s piece on the Pope’s December outburst seems like an exception to me:
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/its-time-to-sing-out-if-youre-gay-catholic---and-angry-20081226-75ik.html
All too often, the supporters of gay marriage are relegated to the novelty or humour pages:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/western-society-my-gay-weddings-role-in-its-downfall/2007/09/20/1189881678755.html

Many media outlets are willing to pander to anti-gay attitudes in order to build a story:
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,25168796-5006022,00.html However important stories about relationship rights, like Labor’s plans for state-based “separate-but-equal” civil unions (the subject of the article we’re discussing here) don’t appear. George Pell can get a feature article in the Sydney Morning Herald, but Rodney Croome is writing on Online Opinion.

Finally, the most compelling evidence that the debate is not being shut down lies in the fact that individuals are able to anonymously post here all sorts of calumny and misinformation http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8779#139868 against homosexuals. I cannot possibly be the only person who thinks it's pathetic when adults engaged in a debate whinge "but we're not being allowed to debate!"

Calling disagreement censorship, bullying, or an attempt to shut down the debate is simply a transparent ruse to divert attention from the underlying lack of substance.

Roy, did you consider the irony when you logged onto a public discussion site to declare you're being prevented from expressing your views publicly? You're being silenced, and you're shouting it from the rooftops!

Pick up a copy of The Australian or Quadrant. Their editorial policies are explicitly anti-gay. Apparently the gay lobby is so effective at stifling debate that the country's national paper will give a column to Christopher Pearson.

Show us this repression. Give a specific example. Better yet, explain how this powerful gay lobby gained control of the media and government.

Either there's a massive, well-organised homosexual conspiracy to silence your opinions and gay-ify our society, or you're simply being ignored because most Australians disagree with you. Which do you think is more likely?

KMB, I must thank you for introducing me to NARTH. "Homophobia" is such an overused term that it's refreshing to be reminded that some people are genuinely terrified by homosexuals.

And what does NARTH's rigorous and disinterested cherry-picking of someone else's research show? That children are likely to adopt the views and politics of their parents? What a revelation!

It's another red herring though, because your argument relies on the assumption that homosexuals harm society, which you have not only failed to prove, but failed to even argue. If you had some evidence you'd put it up, but you haven't. You're like an astronomer beginning a thesis with "Obviously, the moon is made of cheese. Therefore..."

You don't have to like homosexuals, but you have no grounds to deny them full participation in society. I'd be angry and disappointed if a child of mine became a Christian, but I wouldn't try to make churches illegal.

And KMB, you're still dodging my question about the slippery slope. I put it to you that you're afraid to defend your argument because you don't even believe it yourself. Prove me wrong.

KMB

You are concerned that SS couples will pass on their 'traits' if permitted to raise children.

When are you going do to something about all those heterosexual couples who give birth to gays?

According to research the first and second born children (of the same sex) are likely to be straight, but third born siblings (of the same sex) have a greater chance to be gay. This means if you are the third born in a family with siblings of the same sex as you, you could be homosexual.

If I am not making myself clear please read link below:

http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12465295

Therefore, stop blaming gays for the accident of their birth, but ban all those breeding hetero couples - its all their fault.

“Are you suggesting that SSM can be separated from its impact on children?
That’s what you’d like the naïve to think.

Don’t obscure the real issue Sparkyq.”

The real issue is misrepresentation of the facts. KMB you fail to take the entire article you linked to into consideration, nor do you understand the psychology and are typically trying to protect your ideological stance. Children brought up in a bakery or hotel, are more likely to chose those occupations and social orientation in life differently to those brought up in a builders, artist, doctor or radicals house.

You can't change a persons sexual or any other orientation, some people float in between and others experiment. But you are either homosexual, or you are not. There are psychological outcomes from being involved with a homosexual relationship, just as there are with heterosexual. It's those outside the relationships which have the biggest problems, beyond what you'd find in any household in the world.

We all suffer psychological problems from upbringing, only fools would state you only need one sex to bring up children. And only fools would say it can't be done without both sexes, it's approach which has the best outcomes and consideration for the child's feelings which is paramount.

Fractelle, "If I am not making myself clear please read link below:

http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12465295 "

Where did the article or the research make anything 'clear'? There is no proof of anything from what I read, just possibles for further research and who knows what the results might be?

Or do you agree for instance that gay men and women are neurotic and there is a purpose in that?