Paul,

"Good to see the gunnie pair Issy and Leo, who on another thread are vigorously arguing the rights of the minuscule minority to have their gun fun, at the expense of the majority. While on this thread the gun happy guys bemoan the rights of another minority they don't happen to agree with"

I've always stuck up for the rights of homosexuals, except that when as a soldier on active service I never let them share the same fox hole.
One doesn't need unnecessary distractions when alertness is paramount.

I know some homosexual shooters, in fact, the former secretary of one club to which I belong is one; he's no longer with us as he made a bit of a balls up (singular) and is now a guest of the State, still, he was a good secretary and a nice bloke.

I just think that marriage is between a man and a woman.

Foxy,

Re the AMA homosexual marriage apologia and the critique thereof.

I wasn't seeking to change minds here or even offer alternate evidence. I was simply pointing out that the AMA study, which you viewed as of the highest quality, was rather biased and that it had inexplicably left out vital evidence. I was also pointing out that the SMH and other media had sought to hide the critique for reasons that ought to be rather obvious.

Foxy I rather enjoy your passion and compassion on this and other issues in the same way as I'd imagine Clemenceau admired the passion of the youthful socialist ("Not to be a socialist at twenty is proof of want of heart; to be one at thirty is proof of want of head.").

But I wonder if you've stopped to ponder why the SMH was so anxious to highlight the AMA's views but to hide other views and if that might make you a little less trusting of your sources? And I wonder if you've given thought as to why you'd immediately run off to Wikipedia to check on the credentials of those who have views you don't like but not bother to do such 'research' for confirmatory views?

I'm not pushing these other studies. My personal view is that there is currently insufficient data to fully evaluate the total effects of homosexual child-rearing because it hasn't been going on long enough in large enough numbers. But I do think there is more than sufficient evidence gathered over a long period and through many cultures and ages that children do best when raised by their biological father and biological mother.

When society does things to weaken that institution it, society, suffers. Nonetheless we will do it. I just think it ought to be a societal decision not something cooked up in the backroom of political operatives looking for passing electoral advantage.

Dear mhaze,

I have learned from experience to check on so called
"experts" when they cite their views - and I do read
both the pros and the
cons of same sex marriage. However, I found the link you gave
lacking in credibility, including the authors of the so called
surveys regarding children and same sex couples. These
were discredited by their peers.

BTW: I do not set out to purposely
bring any one into disrepute. I don't have to they usually
manage to do that entirely by themselves.

I'll repeat what I've posted previously:

Each society views its own patterns of marriage, family, and
kinship as self-evidently right and proper, and usually as
God-given as well. Much of the current concern about the
fate of the modern family stems from this kind of ethnocentrism.
If we assume that there is only one "right" family form,
then naturally any change will be interpreted as heralding
the doom of the whole institution.

It is important to recognise, therefore, that there is an
immense range in marriage, family, and kinship patterns;
that each of these patterns may be, at least in its own
context, perfectly viable; and above all that the family, like
any other social institution, must inevitably change
through time, in our own society, as in all others.

Dear ttbn,

Thank You for your opinion and sharing your views.
You are not alone in your feelings. Approximately
forty per cent of Australians do not approve of
same-sex marriage for a variety of reasons. We
will all have a chance to have our say via a vote.
We need to make it count.

AJ

"Interracial marriage was also illegal in some US states. Presumably you support interracial marriages. So, why the double-standard?"

I support interracial marriage between a man and a woman. No double standard there. And since you're so one-eyed, how can you see double? :)

"I’ll consider it more if you could tell me how it’s analogous."
I was deriding your reaching back into pre-me history by doing likewise. Too subtle? But if you want some history, ponder that all anti-sodomy laws were repealed by the revolutionary councils while so-called republican marriage was encouraged. And didn't that work out well. (Being slightly facetious here!)

"Correct. So, going back to my last post, why are you against it for same-sex couples?"

I don't know why this is so hard for you to get. Marriage is a mechanism to facilitate the best arrangements for the raising of the next generation ie a natural father and natural mother. Homosexual marriage isn't.

AJ yesterday: "At no point has anyone ever claimed that."
AJ 1/7/16: "The nuclear family was only the most common form of family between the '40s to the '70s."

'Flexible' thinking?

Still, a degree of flexible thinking is required from those of a certain leaning in this regard. Its required so that you can think that only religious fanatics oppose homosexual marriage while (judiciously) forgetting that less than a decade ago the likes of the Obamessiah, Rudd, Gillard, Wong, the female Clinton also thought that marriage was something between a man and a woman. But then again, what's principle when political advantage is available.

"The research suggests that children do best in families with two parents." and then in virtually the next breathe AJ wonders why I think single parenthood has been detrimental to society. More flexible thinking? Earlier I suggested that an understanding of 1984 would help the appropriation of the word 'gay' make sense. Perhaps it (1984) would also help with an understanding of double-think

The sting in the tail of this issue is the rights of those that disagree with SSM to disassociate themselves from the issue need to be protected so that the ridiculous case of a religious baker being prosecuted for refusing to bake a wedding cake for an SSM does not occur here. I personally think this is silly business practice as turning away business is a sure fire recipe for financial failure.

With regards adoption, for lesbian couples, this is normally a non-issue as they can produce their own children, but for gay men, this puts them at a disadvantage. The number of children available for adoption is so low that all forms of discrimination are already applied, such as age, income, community service etc, so a non-traditional family stands little chance.