At present, I'm in the process of writing a book about my family history. A lot of old photographs go back to when one of my grandparents was young, through to their old age, before passing away.

Research and travel will be time consuming, but enable me to come closer to my "home roots" and where I had come from regarding family connections. I've been told some interesting stories and this is a good framework to start writing such a story for myself and others.

But watching the Q&A program last evening, one woman asked a question about same sex couples having children, taking in thoughts to IVF and surrogate mother programs overseas.

A response given, was this already occurs and raising a child is all about 'love'. For myself, 'the rights of the child' is also important.

A future generation of people, may be brought up in a nice 'loving' environment, but with no connection to their family heritage, love alone may not be enough.

Many people adopted from overseas, are now, looking excessively for their biological mothers, parents and families and I feel many couples in the western world show little respect in that context.

But how is this related to the 'Yes' vs 'No' debate?

Whether or not children live with both their parents has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not their parents have a piece of paper with a government stamp that claims that they are "married".

IVF was never intended to legalise gay marriage: but this is how it's being used.

Yeah, what Yuyutsu said. Gay couples are already having children. Same-sex marriage isn't going to change that. Marriage equality would at least help the children of these families to feel less stigmatised and promote stability within their families, so the 'Won't somebody please think of the children!' argument used in opposition to same-sex marriage doesn't work.

perverting the marriage act will just encourage more into the homosexual lifestyle as has the putrifying of kids minds through garbage like 'safe' schools. More kids will suffer and suicide rates will continue to rise with this regression to sodom and gomorrah. As usual the complete dysfunction the regressives create will then be blamed by the ' hatred' of those who warned against the consequences.

Dear Runner,

The "Marriage Act" is already so perverse that it can hardly be further perverted.

Since marriage is declared in heaven, how possibly can secular human clerks decree whether a couple is married or not?

I will vote 'No' because I hope that by rejecting the proposed change, pressure will rise to repeal the Marriage Act altogether.

"perverting the marriage act will just encourage more into the homosexual lifestyle" - so tempted to have a dig at runner over the state of his certainty of sexual orientation to consider that a real issue.

Overall I think that social pressure for people to live as though their orientation was something other than what it is is very unhealthy for them and those they marry.

R0bert

Gay couples already have full parenting rights, and neither party has any intention of repealing that legislation.

It's no use trying to shut the barn door once the horse has bolted.

If you were worried about it at the time, you should have dug in your position then. Because now you're caught on the retreat, arguing against well established legislation that isn't going to be repealed when you should be focusing your efforts on the battle at hand. Poor strategy.

Yuyutsu,

Love is not about possession, it’s all about appreciation - a Chinese Proverb.

So the debate on the non-binding opinion poll will be difficult to calculate. Some accept the process, but others wish to see the process fall to its detriment.

In regards to the 'yes' versus 'no' debate, people have raised questions in regards to legislation, with some seeing a 'yes' vote as a way to push for easier access to surrogacy programs in Australia, with some ethicists also raising concerns about future customed designed children.

The problem with Australia is that there are varying laws in states and territories on this matter and many are accessing programs overseas. I personally do not support any type of surrogacy, as per the above Proverb.

If a person (who cannot have a child through birth) in principle believes love is important, they will much more appreciate a person's roots and connection to a biological family, not possession under a position of having a child in a loving environment.

Aj phillips, you are wrong.

The argument is over the word marriage being used by the gay community. Setting up strawmen arguments to knock them down is what propaganda is all about.

The other type of false argument being used by the yes campaign is to falsely accuse the no campaign of using the fallacy of the slippery slope argument. This only applies to relatively small initial steps.

To try and argue that ssm is a relatively small step is high farce and the no vote can see the boldfaced propaganda when the fake media pretend they don't know this.

The no vote are very awake to all this flim-flammery!

Get off the greed train, people, or your society will be taken away by tricksters who know your kids can't see where the attacks on its own society are coming from.

Attacks on the church are attacks on Western Civilisation and they aren't new: this has all been going on for a long time but your kids don't know that. Wake up and start protecting your kids...now!

Toni, who exactly is guilty of using poor strategy?

//Toni, who exactly is guilty of using poor strategy?//

The French.

RObert:

An ‘orientation’ presumes that human beings are attracted by the desire for sex. There is no reason why they would be since no one needs another human being in order to be sexually satisfied.

We are attracted to people of both sexes for a whole host of reasons but mainly because we seek in others the human qualities which we cannot find in ourselves. These are qualities which we have the potential for but which have been suppressed for one reason or another. This is what attracts people and not sex.

There is no ‘sexual orientation’. This is just a rationalisation of homosexual behaviour.

//There is no reason why they would be since no one needs another human being in order to be sexually satisfied.//

Nah, but you'll go blind if you devote too much effort to conducting yourself in the solo symphony.

//We are attracted to people of both sexes for a whole host of reasons but mainly because we seek in others the human qualities which we cannot find in ourselves.//

Nah, this 'opposites attract' business is all well and good when it comes to electromagnetism, but it's bollocks when it applies to people. I want a woman with whom I have things in common.

//This is what attracts people and not sex.//

Nah, because as I said, I want a woman with whom I have things in common. A bloke wouldn't cut it because I don't fancy blokes.

Toni Lavis:

Why do you want a woman at all? Do you feel inadequate?

mememememememe,

Ultimately, where most opponents are concerned, you’re probably right about that.

<<The argument is over the word marriage being used by the gay community.>>

So, then, why do so many feign a concern for children?

<<Setting up strawmen arguments to knock them down is what propaganda is all about.>>

Indeed. But I was responding to NathanJ’s concern about the children involved, so there were no straw men harmed in the posting of my argument.

<<The other type of false argument being used by the yes campaign …>>

The other? We haven’t established one, yet.

<<... is to falsely accuse the no campaign of using the fallacy of the slippery slope argument.>>

No, no. That one’s legitimate, because arguing a slippery slope evades the issue at hand by leaping forward to other issues; some of which may never even eventuate.

<<[The slippery slope fallacy] only applies to relatively small initial steps.>>

No, it doesn’t. You made that up.

http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/162/Slippery-Slope

<<To try and argue that ssm is a relatively small step is high farce …>>

Relatively? In relation to what? Specify that, and I’ll know whether I agree with you regarding how small a step it is, and whether it's a farce.

<<Wake up and start protecting your kids...now!>>

Yeah, as I alluded to before, the concern for children is naive at best, and feigned at worst.

AJ Phillips,

My post, is in relation to a book that I am writing, the connection to family history and this discussion relates to the protection of an individuals personal family roots. Some stories, I don't have as all of my grandparents have now passed away, and so a lot of time, effort and interstate travel will be needed to complete any research. I am even considering going overseas.

Family and culture is important to preserve in terms of the ethnic and cultural origins of Australia. One only has to look at indigenous and other cultural stories that have lasted over many generations.

As I stated "If a person (who cannot have a child through birth) in principle believes love is important, they will much more appreciate a person's roots and connection to a biological family, not possession under a position of having a child in a loving environment".

To see where this can fit people can read many stories about the stolen generation online. Many still feel violated, even to this day. Whilst today, people see others who cannot have children (using surrogacy programs) as part of normal practice, many took the same view in the past, when children were taken away from their parents (or such a practice would simply have not occurred at the time).

How will people (born via surrogacy) be able to go back to their family roots? Many state governments are also taking Australian History out as a year 12 subject, and in my view are not respecting Australia's rich cultural heritage as a result. This is where Australians have an important role to play and not constantly be a policy vacuum to the United States.

People can view this to hopefully understand my point: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOwqoEgED1g

//Why do you want a woman at all?//

Because I'm not a robot, mate.

//Do you feel inadequate?/

Oh, yes. Deeply inadequate. I am but a weak, feeble shadow of a pathetic man. Please, please lecture me on how I might become a better and stronger person by following the phanto method, for you are surely the most insightful and erudite man who ever lived, and I do find your lectures so very enthralling.

You should write a book or something.

"Because I'm not a robot, mate."

Nor a human being by the sound of it.

"Oh, yes. Deeply inadequate."

I thought so.

//Nor a human being by the sound of it.//

Nah, I covered this on another thread:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7905#244615

I'm really half lizard.

//"Oh, yes. Deeply inadequate."

I thought so.//

Quick, somebody fetch me some cold water for that scorching burn!

"I'm really half lizard."

But I thought you were being sarcastic. How can we tell the difference between your sarcasm and any genuine arguments you may have?

Nathan J,

Best of luck in your family research; been there and still at it.
In my case, I was fortunate that one of my ancestors was a fairly well to do Scottish farmer and he married one of the numerous daughters of an impoverished nobleman thus opening a portal for his descendant to build an imposing family tree; always being mindful, however, that family trees are like peanut bushes, the best parts are under the ground!!

Dear Nathan,

It will help you to remain focused on one topic.

You write above love, about surrogacy, about custom-design children and about family - but not about your own topic: "The rights of the child in the 'yes' vs 'no' debate".

I understand that this debate triggered a train of thoughts in your mind, but this leads nowhere.

When trying to concentrate on one issue and other matters pop up, do set them aside. If you feel that you need to write such side-thoughts on a piece of paper, so you won't lose them, that's OK, do so, but then go back to the original object rather than follow the proceeds of these side-thoughts.

This art of concentration eventually leads into meditation. It will give you the necessary strength to solve all mental problems.

For those people who use the argument that all children need is a safe loving environment to be happy there are two issues.
Firstly, why does everyone assume that gay couples are any happier or more stable then heterosexual. The opposite is actually true. The domestic violence rate is higher in same sex and bisexual couples,than in heterosexual couples, and break down of the relationship is common.
Secondly, all studies on the effect on children being raised without fathers is very clear. The outcomes are far worse than for children raised with a father, especiallymtheir biological father. Not many studies are available on kids raised without mothers but I would guarantee the results would be the same.
The idea that mothers and fathers are interchangeable is a joke.

one of the main reasons that Indigenous kids fill our prisons is because so few grow up with a father. Just another inconvenient truth.

The idea that the yes campaign is factual is a joke. Does Dr Kerryn Phelps know anything about micro-biology? Of course she does and she is abrogating her responsibilities as a Dr.

If she wants to talk about mental health then why doesn't she talk about suicide rates of gender surgery patients? (Neat little trick that one that onlingy requires a bunch of dodgy journos pretend they haven't got the skills to analyse her words because SHE'S A DOCTOR... which is a whole 'nother trick in itself!!))

The yes vote campaign is the one that is trying to fool our children with non-factual argument. The fake journalists are the ones allowing it to happen.

This is why Trump won the American Presidency: because he took on fake news and it's shonky journos... for they are the ones attacking Western Civilisation!

I didn’t realise that was an assumption held by anyone, Big Nana.

<<Firstly, why does everyone assume that gay couples are any happier or more stable then heterosexual.>>

This sounds like another straw man, to me.

<<The opposite is actually true. The domestic violence rate is higher in same sex and bisexual couples,than in heterosexual couples, and break down of the relationship is common.>>

Could you link me to your sources? As I understand it, it is not easy to conclude one way or the other:

http://aifs.gov.au/cfca/publications/intimate-partner-violence-lgbtiq-communities

It would hardly be surprise if you were right, though, and one way we can do our bit to reduce the problems in the LGBT community is to stop treating them with discrimination. It’s sociology 101.

<<Secondly, all studies on the effect on children being raised without fathers is very clear.>>

Could you link me to some of these studies? All the studies I’m aware of conclude that the number of parents is the significant factor (i.e. two are better than one), not the sex of the parents.

Anyway, the fact remains that same-sex couples are already having children. So, even if you are right, given the stability that marriage can promote, this is actually argument in favour of same-sex marriage.

the regressives destroyed any rights a child has within its mother's womb so the selishness on steriods continues with the lack of concern outside the womb.

AJP,

Same sex couples can't have children.

Cupric Embarrasment,

They can, and are doing so, with the help of a third party. Do I really need to tell you this?

Some also have children from previous heterosexual relationships.

AJP,

Does sociology 101 replace microbiology 101?

Dr Kerry Phelps should be ashamed of herself and I can expect she will be feeling the heat from many in her own, and surrounding, profession/s. Then she dares to go on to talk about mental health, which is probably really the topic you were actually trying to refer to, yet doesn't dare talk about the suicide rate of gender surgery.

The yes vote are trying to fool our children.

Does AJP think it's actually funny to try and get kids to role play as same sex couples and possibly get them to 'come out' in front of their friends by accident and never be able to live it down when they decide they aren't actually gay and just got confused by the forced role-play?

AJP: you're dangerous!

AJP: where's your sociology 101 now? The slipper slope fallacy only applies to relatively small steps and if you were to try and argue that ssm is a relatively small step then you are the biggest joke that ever typed on an internet forum anywhere in the whole world: because that is some seriously high class farce there brother.

You don't have to tell me some gays couples have children from previous relationships because I remember some of my childhood friends parents turning gay later in life.

I simply said same sex couples can't have kids. If you want to encourage this obviously unnatural behaviour then I find your position one of advocating torture.

A Mother and a Father give a child the best balance in life and those that don't have it have problems. Why doesn't Kerryn Phelps go into the mental health story there?

Then we could argue the statistical significance of her figures...

You, sir, are dangerous!

You don't even know what sociology 101 is. Do you?

That's the campaign for the yes vote: pure bulldust! Trying to fool the kids of Australia.... this countrys future: and you identify from the right?

Hang on, you've got your get-out-of-jail clause coming up don't ya- just like Daddy taught you. (You vote no for a different reason, yeh blah blah blah the right were born to rule blah blah blah etc!)

You're just walking both sides of the fence mate.

No, Cupric Embarrasment, it doesn’t?

<<Does sociology 101 replace microbiology 101?>>

Who suggested that it does or that it should need to?

<<Dr Kerry Phelps should be ashamed of herself and I can expect she will be feeling the heat from many in her own, and surrounding, profession/s.>>

I’ll take your word for that.

<<Then she dares to go on to talk about mental health, which is probably really the topic you were actually trying to refer to …>>

“Trying to”, as if I’d somehow failed to do so. I like it.

If you knew that, then why compare sociology to microbiology?

<<… yet doesn't dare talk about the suicide rate of gender surgery.>>

I don’t see why she wouldn’t (presuming it’s even high). How about you enlighten us?

<<Does AJP think it's actually funny to try and get kids to role play as same sex couples and possibly get them to 'come out' in front of their friends by accident and never be able to live it down when they decide they aren't actually gay and just got confused by the forced role-play?>>

I don’t know. How about you ask him?

<<where's your sociology 101 now?>>

Standing strong and completely unaffected by your confused and erratic rambling, apparently.

<<The slipper slope fallacy only applies to relatively small steps …>>

Oh, so you’re a sock puppet for mememememememe (Or is it the other way around?).

No, the slippery slope fallacy does not only apply to relatively small steps. It applies to any attempt to distract from the issue at hand by shifting attention to extreme hypotheticals.

http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/162/Slippery-Slope

<<… and if you were to try and argue that ssm is a relatively small step …>>

As I said to your sock puppet, in relation to what?

<<A Mother and a Father give a child the best balance in life and those that don't have it have problems.>>

References, please?

<<You don't even know what sociology 101 is . Do you?>>

Yes, I do. Sociology is a major component of a Bachelor of Criminology. Clearly you don't, though.

AJP voted for copper internet and now we know why! (He's a complete tripper!!)

Yuyutsu,

In hindsight the discussion topic would have read better, if I had referred to the implications on future generations (or further policy or legislation development) in terms of the proposed opinion poll.

The reason I related to children, was that I am currently undertaking research for a book I intend to publish. Such research goes back to one's childhood and it is something that cannot be written off.

This article in regards to IVF: "Chloe Allworthy’s life changed when she found her real dad", gives some further background to the matter and research being undertaken by individuals in 2017.

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/parenting/kids/chloe-allworthys-life-changed-when-she-found-her-real-dad/news-story/636605685ef60987832cedd394e607f5

So arguments, in regards to IVF or surrogacy programs that state such practices occur at present, making such activity acceptable, are questionable. Societal elements such as terrorism, murder and domestic violence also occur in society, but many will not simply accept these.

Finally, in terms of voting 'yes' or 'no' and Australia's direction as a nation, this is important. This particular process is not an election, there are no preferences involved and my or others vote (if one feels compelled to vote) will show that Australia's direction, can be a decision of one's own self. The only downside is that it will be driven by the simplicity of two elements, 'yes' or 'no', of which people have been somewhat forced to accept.

<<Then she dares to go on to talk about mental health, which is probably really the topic you were actually trying to refer to …>>

“Trying to”, as if I’d somehow failed to do so. I like it.

If you knew that, then why compare sociology to microbiology?

==> ajp is off his head !

Dear Nathan,

Certainly, this survey is flawed: we could get so much more for this $122,000,000 survey than just a binary answer.

Other than increasing their debt, the results of the survey will have no implications on future generations, because everything can be done, and already occurs, with or without this stupid formal piece of paper.

IVF and surrogacy exist whether we like them or not.
We have no moral right, neither to forbid these practices, nor to support them using the tax-payer's money.

---

Dear Cupric,

«same sex couples can't have kids.»

Assuming or wishing that this was the case, doesn't this render them better citizens?

Just imagine, had nearly everyone been homosexual, we would have no overpopulation!

We could have enjoyed the bounty of this earth with its plentiful resources - no government, no corporations, no wars, no bills, no electronic distractions, no hard labour (since we would only be picking earth's low-hanging fruit). We could instead devote most of our time to worship, prayer and meditation - in short, heaven on earth!

The rights of the child in the "yes" vs "no" debate?

Wouldn't it be great if we could put in place a
legal regime that protected children equally regardless of
their different circumstances and the diversity of their
families and that it would protect children's rights
regardless of how they were conceived and to whom?

We could then set the bar high for everyone - regardless
of gender or sexual orientation. The legal responsibility
would then be to educate, support, protect and nurture
children.

If only we could get rid of the stigma and the unjust
concept of illegitimacy concerning children in certain
non-marital families including but not limited to
children whose parents are a same-sex couple who continue
to experience inferior treatment under the law. It would
follow then that rather than undermining children's interests
and rights the adoption of Marriage Equality would
represent further progress to equalise the position of
all children.

It would be great if in this country we could
ensure laws that all children are entitled without
discrimination to respect their family relationships.

What is important to children's well being is
not simply who their birth parents are, but the quality of
the care, support and security that they receive.

Research increasingly shows that the quality of children's
relationships with their carers is what affects children's
lives and life chances.

This was adapted from the following link which I thought
summed things up rather well:

http://theconversation.com/how-same-sex-marriage-will-protect-childrens-rights-42058

AJ, here is a link to one of many studies re domestic violence in same sex households. And I doubt public opinion hasn't any relations to these figures, the situation is just as bad in countries that have had same sex marriage for many years.

https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/nisvs_sofindings.pdf

Thanks for the link, Big Nana.

Two interesting points I noted: firstly, it doesn’t include gay male couples, and; secondly, the biggest difference by far was observed with bisexual women (regardless of the type of relationship they were in at the time).

One of the references the study cites (http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1300/J015v23n03_03) confirms what I observed in my last post to you:

“It would hardly be surprising if you were right, though, and one way we can do our bit to reduce the problems in the LGBT community is to stop treating [gay people] with discrimination.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7904#244649)

As I also noted earlier, given the stability marriage promotes and the fact that gay couples are already having children, this is only an argument in favour of same-sex marriage.

"given the stability marriage promotes "

I don't think so. Immaturity and other problems cannot be remedied by marriage. Things just become messy and others are hurt.

Even more ill-advised would be adding a child in the hope of sorting sad choices and sad lives.

leoj,

There's difference between promoting something and remedying it. Even if marriage did nothing to promote stability, though, a feigned concern for children still wouldn't be a argument against same-sex marriage, as gay couples are already having children.

Ajp thinks there is a feigned concern for children from the no vote:

Why doesn't the yes vote acknowledge that ssm can't even have children?

AJ Philips,

No, marriage needs active work, hard work from both individuals. Without self-control one is setting it up to fail. That hurts the other party and more victims where there are (thoughtlessly acquired) children.

Get your sh** sorted first and don't be relying on the other person, who also has her/his tasks in life, the challenges of his his/her own existential angst to handle.

We are born alone, live alone and die alone. Recognise that first and deal with it, getting our own values straight and resolving to control and to manage ourselves and to behave accordingly.

A philanderer or say a needy person, anyone immature, prior to marriage will be same after but worse and with more excuses and blaming, although Hollywood might have it otherwise on the flickering screen and then just for seconds.

Dear AJ,

You're absolutely right. People who are against
SSM because of children should then consider
banning marriages for all those hetero couples who
are marrying late in life and also those couples
who have no intention of having children. Gay couples
are having children, and already have children - by
either surrogacy, IVF, previous marriages, adoption,
and so on.

What is important to children's well being is not
simply who their birth parents are, but the quality
of the care, support, and security that they receive.
Research has increasingly shown that the quality of
children's relationships with their carers is what
affects children's lives and children's chances.

leoj,

That you think the fact that relationships need to be actively worked negates my claim, only demonstrates that you are still not grasping the difference between promoting stability and remedying dysfunction.

Promote:
Support or actively encourage (a cause, venture, etc.); (http://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/promote)

Remedy:
Set right (an undesirable situation) (http://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/remedy)

While marriage will do nothing to fix the problems in a relationship, it does promote stability insofar as it provides additional motivation (psychological, social, legal, financial, etc.) to work on the relationship before calling it quits.

Where children are concerned, one could also point to the fact that not discriminating against the parents of children of same-sex couples would reduce the stigmatisation of their families.

No matter which way one looks at it, children are not a reason to oppose same-sex marriage.

'What is important to children's well being is not
simply who their birth parents are, but the quality
of the care, support, and security that they receive.'

tell that to the stolen/rescued generation Foxy. Being taken from abusive parents certainly has not made them thankful in many cases.

Dear runner,

Perhaps because in those many cases their parents
were not abusive. And they would encounter abuse
where they were being taken.

Just a thought.

AJ Phillips,

If you reckon that marriage promotes stability you need to demonstrate the what and how of that.

Are you saying it introduces inconveniences to splitting up, such as forms, procedure, court and higher costs, which produce the stability of remaining trapped in a relationship that is unsatisfactory?

I've already outlined the personal contributions to making a relationship work effectively. That is, where both are mature and motivated enough to self-control and pitch in.

I am wondering what State recognition does to 'stabilise' as you say.

I’ve already noted some reasons why marriage promotes stability, leoj.

<<If you reckon that marriage promotes stability you need to demonstrate the what and how of that.>>

Again, there are psychological, social, legal, and financial factors which may influence a couple’s decision in how much they work towards the relationship before calling it quits.

You seem to have somewhat grasped the legal and financial factors I mentioned. Then there are also the social factors (such as the stigma of divorce), and the psychological factors (such as the belief that one needs to make a genuine attempt to save the relationship because a vow has been made).

<<Are you saying it introduces inconveniences to splitting up, such as forms, procedure, court and higher costs, which produce the stability of remaining trapped in a relationship that is unsatisfactory?>>

That was a small part of what I said, yes. However, you have inserted the “in a relationship that is unsatisfactory” bit yourself. What I have said is not confined to relationships that are inevitably doomed.

If a relationship really is so unsatisfactory that it is destined to fail, then marriage can still help to promote stability, it's just that it will ultimately fail in the end. This still does not negate my point, however.

<<I've already outlined the personal contributions to making a relationship work effectively.>>

Yes, and I have already explained how that does not negate my point. You’re still not quite getting the difference between promotion and remedy, are you?

<<I am wondering what State recognition does to 'stabilise' as you say.>>

You just mentioned a couple of ways. I expanded on another two.

Again, though, this is all irrelevant, because gay couples are already having children. Therefore, I have to ask what you’re point is here? Even if you were right, that would say nothing for whether or not same-sex marriage should be allowed, and you would still have the fact that allowing for same-sex marriage would help reduce stigmatisation for those children of such relationships working against your opposition to same-sex marriage.

AJ Philips,

What you have done is list some of the objections feminists and 'Progressives' generally have to heterosexual marriage and why they want to see it dispensed with ASAP.

As well, sadly the claimed simplicity and economy of parting under what was the new family law were false promises, with no dependents, one shared home divorces escalating past $40k. Complicated and expensive, ensuring that one, likely both, lose any assets and investments.

Foxy too, while vigorously representing the case for SSM through finding flaws in 'traditional'(sic) or heterosexual(sic) marriage as she is prone to do (Foxy is also one who claims that SSM was allowed all of the time and intended by the Marriage Act had Howard not amended it), actually proves the case against marriage per se and especially where children are concerned. At the end if one is assured of anything, it is that marriage is no guarantor of better raising of children, or even having children, than its avoidance which seems better.

Of course it could be argued that since Gillard (who better for a listing of the flaws of marriage?) and her government boasted of amending over eighty Acts to remove forever all discrimination against homosexuals, that they should have stopped there. Although Gillard, first female PM, Roxon, first female Attorney-General and ors despised marriage, they were still emulated Lady Godiva, by having half each way of the grey, to hoover up the entitlements of married status, where available.

They also herded homosexuals into the corral of State control, the confines of the despised 'traditional' marriage, through changes to de facto 'relationships' (their newspeak for common law marriage).

To cut to the chase, if feminists and more broadly, 'Progressives' are to be believed, they have already sentenced homosexuals to the very same flawed institution of marriage that they want gone and are just finishing off the job.

Obviously, there are distinct advantages for the well-off, the elite, in having 'married' status and especially where employment gives substantial benefits, thinking superannuation, travel and housing. No silver lining and golden handshake, for the common herd.

leoj,

Could you please give an example of where I found
flaws in heterosexual relationships? You state that
I am prone to do this. Which frankly is news to me.

As for our former Prime Minister John Howard
Amending the Marriage Act in 2004. That he did.
Prior to 2004, marriage was not defined. It was
"between two people." Mr Howard made it specifically
to read "between a man and a woman to the
exclusion of all others."

The point that was being made was that if the government
could amend the Marriage Act. It can also change it back.
Especially since -
Marriage in this country is a legal contract controlled
by the government. The government does have the power to
make changes. That was the point being made.

cont'd ...

leoj,

You make the sweeping generalisation that feminists
and progressives have objections to heterosexual
relationships. What evidence do you have for this
assumption?

Just because some people support same-sex
marriages does not mean that they are anti-heterosexual
relationships. They may possibly be merely trying to
dispel some of the myths and fallacies that currently
exist about both heterosexuals and homosexuals.
The pros and cons so to speak.

Also, just because a person raises certain arguments in
a debate does not necessarily reflect that person's own
private opinion. Surely you must have taken part in formal
debating at some stage of your life.
Perhaps not.

Dear Foxy,

By claiming that: "Marriage in this country is a legal contract controlled by the government" you are making a cruel mockery of marriage.

Marriage is marriage whether you are in Australia or on the moon - either it's there or it isn't. To deny the reality of marriage by saying that other people can decide and change what is in your heart of hearts, is not even a funny joke.

To demonstrate, let us suppose that government legislates that you are now married to some elephant in the zoo - would that, in your view, actually render you married to that elephant?

Foxy writes:
“The point that was being made was that if the government
could amend the Marriage Act. It can also change it back.”

Yeah, they could but given there were zero same sex marriages prior to 2004 because everyone knew what marriage meant, why would anyone carry on about it.

I expect the vast majority of people are fine with civil unions as well.

One real question that might be asked is:
What would same sex couples bring to the table in terms of ‘marriage’?

Dear Dustin,

«but given there were zero same sex marriages prior to 2004»

Really? All the difference is that in modern history, before 2004 those marriages were not registered by governments. In the West, they were previously registered by the Greeks and Romans and since 2004 some governments recognised them again. This doesn't mean that such marriages did not occur in between.

«because everyone knew what marriage meant»

Apparently this is not the case. Our dear Foxy for example, thinks that marriage is something to do with governments.

«I expect the vast majority of people are fine with civil unions as well.»

I am not one of them: government should stay right out of registering personal relationships.

Yuyutsu writes:
“government should stay right out of registering personal relationships.”

Good luck getting a birth certificate, then.

If I decide to vote in this opinion poll, I won't be voting favour of myself, as I don't care about that. I won't be voting in of favour of couples (they can look after themselves), but I will vote in favour of individuals. Individuals need protection in terms of basic human rights, in the context that they stand alone.

This was shown in the link I put, which says: "In the past few years, the information about Ms Allworthy’s donor sat in a file in the hands of people (government) who it had no meaning, but she could not access it, despite it meaning everything to her."

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/parenting/kids/chloe-allworthys-life-changed-when-she-found-her-real-dad/news-story/636605685ef60987832cedd394e607f5

This is a gross violation of basic human rights. As a person who has met with public servants myself, they were lifeless people, who simply were there to work for the government. There was no concern about the future or issues past or present and the meeting achieved nothing.

Individuals develop. They are born alone, they live alone as they grow and these individuals will pass away at some time. In terms of any relationship, individuals are still just that, individuals, including in the wider community. The following website, has a lot of quality comment and detail to it, in regards to surrogacy programs, which many do not wish to talk about.

In terms of the book I am currently writing about, family history is very important. Whilst some people may have no interest in family research, it is an issue when writing a book. The statements that IVF and surrogacy programs are happening already, is questionable, with many after (same sex marriage legalisation) will have a desire for children and advocate (legally) for such a move to be very accessible in Australia, potentially financially. One only has to look at the marriage discussion at present.

These impressive sites:

http://www.stopsurrogacynow.com/#sthash.JzBgOLdg.dpbs
http://www.stopsurrogacynow.com/films/#sthash.1SI25o4s.dpbs

Finally, if I was to write off climate change for example, in terms of policy and said no to further action in Australia, many would very much object to that. These people would want immediate action from the Australian government!

Dustin,

Before one even gets to that question, one should ask why gay people need to bring anything at all to marriage?

--

NathanJ,

So, you believe that same-sex marriage will encourage lesbian couples to seek IVF, or increase its accessibility? What about the women already accessing it? I know of a lesbian couple who managed to acquire a sperm donation from the US with no troubles at all.

To put this into perspective, going by what you’re saying, you are wanting to deny equality to an entire demographic just because it might increase the number of children who don’t have the ability to find out who their biological father is.

What about the fact that allowing for same-sex marriage will lower the suicide rate within the gay community, going by what has happened in other countries? How about the right of children of gay people to not feel stigmatised by living in a society which says that their parents should not be allowed to get married?

Why don’t you just advocate for the right of children conceived via such means to locate their biological father? That way, you help all the children who are already living - whether or not their mothers are gay.

Something tells me surrogacy isn’t the real reason you’re going to vote ‘no’.

AJ Philips writes:
“Before one even gets to that question, one should ask why gay people need to bring anything at all to marriage?”

I would have thought that obvious.
If gay folk want to have the law changed, I presumed they think something positive might come from it.
It’s a perfectly legitimate and reasonable question.

The corollary might be: if they can’t answer that, then why should anyone bother.

Dustin,

So, you agree that my question needs to be answered first,

<<I would have thought that obvious.>>

then immediately proceed to assert that if gay people want to have the law changed, then they should explain what they will bring to the institution of marriage.

So, why do they need to bring something to the institution of marriage at all? You seemed to skip that bit.

<<If gay folk want to have the law changed, I presumed they think something positive might come from it.>>

How about equality? That’s something positive which requires absolutely nothing from them apart from their mere existence.

<<The corollary might be: if they can’t answer that, then why should anyone bother.>>

You haven’t yet explained why they should answer it.

AJ Phillips,

<<So, you believe that same-sex marriage will encourage lesbian couples to seek IVF, or increase its accessibility? What about the women already accessing it?>>

I can't say how many people, exactly, will access anything. Would one expect a decrease? I doubt it. Watching all of the video from the 'Festival of Dangerous Ideas: Kajsa Ekis Ekman – Surrogacy Is Child Trafficking', I suggest as many as possible, view this.

<<To put this into perspective, going by what you’re saying, you are wanting to deny equality to an entire demographic just because it might increase the number of children who don’t have the ability to find out who their biological father is.>>

Yes and no. I do believe people have a right, to have access to family records and not have these locked in government filing cabinets or be denied things I may simply take for granted. It's a basic human rights issue. As stated, family history research takes time and historic research isn't just about one parent. I know undertaking historic research before.

<<What about the fact that allowing for same-sex marriage will lower the suicide rate within the gay community, going by what has happened in other countries?>>

This has nothing to do with my post. In terms of suicide, people need professional assistance from qualified individuals to address that matter, not marriage.

<<Why don’t you just advocate for the right of children conceived via such means to locate their biological father? That way, you help all the children who are already living - whether or not their mothers are gay.>>

Once again, lack of understanding is a complexity here. If one takes into consideration family research, there are multiple levels of family elements to consider. Also with the video I referred to, the speaker refers to matters like (surrogate mothers, sperm donors, parents, financial elements and issues like emotional connections between those having to give up a child after birth).

<<Something tells me surrogacy isn’t the real reason you’re going to vote ‘no’>>

I haven't said if I will vote at all.

AJ Philips writes:
“So, why do they need to bring something to the institution of marriage at all?”

Because in it’s absence, the only conclusion one can draw is that they bring nothing.
Otherwise, I presume you’d provide some insight.
Why can’t you provide a simple answer to a simple question? There’s no gotchas in there.

Dodging that simple question is telling, though. It causes the casual reader to draw negative inferences and think you either haven’t got a case or are unwilling to present it.

If we were to take your previous argument using US law, your case would never get to court. I’d be summarily dismissed.
I’d be asking for the court to award costs, too.

AJ Philips writes:
“How about equality?”

Bzzzt.
We’ve covered that. The underlying constraint is eligibility, not equality.

If equality was a genuine issue, the Australian Human Rights Commission is where you need to be.
You can bet Gillian Triggs would swoop down like a seagull onto a hot chip.
But guess what . . . *crickets*

Oh, and happy non gender specific day to you.

Dear Cupric,

«same sex couples can't have kids.»

Assuming or wishing that this was the case, doesn't this render them better citizens?

Just imagine, had nearly everyone been homosexual, we would have no overpopulation!

We could have enjoyed the bounty of this earth with its plentiful resources - no government, no corporations, no wars, no bills, no electronic distractions, no hard labour (since we would only be picking earth's low-hanging fruit). We could instead devote most of our time to worship, prayer and meditation - in short, heaven on earth!
Posted by Yuyutsu, Thursday, 31 August 2017 2:32:16 PM
<<

Yuyutsu,

You say I assume or wish: it's a fact !!

To call them better citizens because of not being able to have children has nothing to do with them wanting to corrupt the word "marriage" so as to destroy the church and therefore Western Civilisation.

Face the facts: ssm is about destroying the church and therefore Western Civilisation and the no vote has every right to be very concerned where this attack on Western Civilisation is coming from!

NathanJ,

On the contrary, an inevitable reduction in the suicide rate within the gay community (going by the experience of every other country that has allowed for same-sex marriage, at least) has everything to do with your post. If you are going to cite altruistic motivations for a stance against same-sex marriage, it is only reasonable that you weigh it up with all other risks and benefits.

<<In terms of suicide, people need professional assistance from qualified individuals to address that matter, not marriage.>>

In no way did I suggest that same-sex marriage be introduced as a means remedying suicide. But if it is capable of reducing the suicide rate, then this cannot be ignored.

--

Dustin,

You're still evading my question.

<<Because in it’s absence, the only conclusion one can draw is that they bring nothing.>>

Again, though, why is that a problem?

<<Otherwise, I presume you’d provide some insight.>>

I'll do my best just as soon as soon you can tell me why they need to bring something to marriage in the first place.

<<Why can’t you provide a simple answer to a simple question?>>

Ditto.

<<Dodging that simple question is telling, though.>>

I will concede this just as soon as you can tell me why gay people need to bring something to marriage in order to be allowed to marry. Suddenly a preliminary question I raised is not so obvious, eh?

<<If we were to take your previous argument using US law… >>

I have never cited US law as an argument. You tried this one on last time. Remember? You're being dishonest again.

<<We’ve covered [equaily].>>

Yes, and you were unable to justify why equality was not relevant.

<<The underlying constraint is eligibility, not equality.>>

Bzzzt.

You tried that line the last time. It flopped. Did you need to go through it again?

AJ Philips writes:
“Again, though, why is that [they bring nothing] a problem?”

I didn’t say it was a problem.
I merely asked what, if anything, they might bring.
I’m now more intrigued because you seem reluctant to say and I wonder why that might be.

AJ Philips writes:
“I will concede this just as soon as you can tell me why gay people need to bring something to marriage in order to be allowed to marry.”

I made no such precondition.

AJ Philips writes:
“Yes, and you were unable to justify why equality was not relevant.”

There’s no need to justify what is irrelevant. You made a mistake, that’s all.
I even pointed you to the relevant Govt. department which will confirm same. Are you expecting me to schedule a collect call from Gillian Triggs, or something?

Alternatively, perhaps you could point me to the case law that supports your claim of inequality . . but under Australian law this time, OK.

Actually, you did, Dustin.

<<I didn’t say it was a problem.>>

If it is a justification which gay people need to provide in order to marry, then it is a problem for them.

<<I merely asked what, if anything, they might bring.>>

Oh, okay then. How about we start with the assumption that they bring nothing to the institution of marriage. Diddly squat. So, what?

<<I’m now more intrigued because you seem reluctant to say and I wonder why that might be.>>

There is no reluctance, I'm simply waiting to see if you can explain why gay people need to add something to the institution of marriage.

<<I made no such precondition.>>

I know you didn’t. However, I’m still willing to concede that my lack of an answer to your question is "telling" if you can explain why there needs to be an answer at all. How’s that for a deal?

<<There’s no need to justify what is irrelevant.>>

There is if your argument rests upon the irrelevance of something.

<<You made a mistake, that’s all.>>

You are yet to demonstrate that I have ever made a mistake in our debates. You couldn’t in the other thread. Let’s see if you can do it now?

<<I even pointed you to the relevant Govt. department which will confirm same.>>

What? That equality in marriage is irrelevant? Think again:

http://www.humanrights.gov.au/our-work/sexual-orientation-sex-gender-identity/projects/marriage-equality

<< . . but under Australian law this time, OK.>>

This time? Name one instance in which I have ever strayed from Australian law. Can’t do it, can you?

Dear Cupric,

«You say I assume or wish: it's a fact !!»

Homosexual people can have kids.
The only difference is that they do not derive pleasure from the act,
but nothing stops them from pairing up just for the purpose, homosexual men with lesbian women; and doing what it takes as there are several other ways to achieve stimulation.

«Face the facts: ssm is about destroying the church and therefore Western Civilisation»

But we need to differentiate: I was writing about homosexuals, rather than about the ssm movement. Yes, the ssm movement is indeed all about destroying the church (well that's their stupid delusion that they can destroy the church, besides, some churches already marry couples of the same gender), but the vast majority of homosexuals do not participate in that nasty movement: we even have an example in this very forum of a homosexual person who opposes this ssm.

Dear Dustin,

«Good luck getting a birth certificate, then»

If, as Foxy believes, the rule was "no marriage certificate - no marriage",
then this would indeed follow: "no birth certificate - no birth".

So you truly think that people need the state to be born? Never heard about storks?!?

AJ Philips writes:
“This time? Name one instance in which I have ever strayed from Australian law. Can’t do it, can you?”

You’re being tedious and dishonest, AJ.
You know full well that you cited US criminal law with respect to the onus of proof.
I reminded you of this on two occasions.

If you don’t have the intellectual integrity to concede a simple point, it becomes clear that you’re not interested in any form of honest exchange in which I wish to be involved.

It appears I was right about your sincerity and willingness to engage in good faith the first time.
My mistake was allowing you to draw me in once more.

So, cheers and be lucky.

So, in other words, Dustin, you cannot provide an example.

<<You know full well that you cited US criminal law with respect to the onus of proof.>>

No, I linked you to a Wikipedia article on the legal burden of proof to give you an example of what the burden of proof is, because you clearly didn’t know (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7880#243937). That the article was talking about the legal burden of proof in the US was irrelevant.

I also linked you to the philosophical burden of proof, which was more relevant to what we were discussing.

Incidentally, apart from defamation law, the US and Australian legal burdens of proof are virtually identical, since you’re apparently so concerned about which country the article spoke of. We both know you’re not of course. You just thought you’d use that to try to make me look foolish.

<<I reminded you of this on two occasions.>>

Yes, I then explained the above, on two occasions, to which you then dropped your little lie pretty damn quickly. Which I guess makes you the only one here being “tedious” and “dishonest”.

<<If you don’t have the intellectual integrity to concede a simple point ...>>

Don’t I know that! Three times now you have failed to demonstrate that you do not have the integrity to take your accusation back.

<<It appears I was right about your sincerity and willingness to engage in good faith the first time.>>

Apparently not.

So, I take it then that we will all, once again, miss out on hearing why the issue of eligibility is more important than equality? Hardly surprising, given your colossal blunder there regarding the HRC. Whoops.

That had to be embarrassing.

I guess we’re also not going to find out why it needs to be demonstrated that gay people will bring something to marriage?
Pity, I even had something in mind.

It all becomes so clear, now, why you introduced this little lie of yours once again. It was to be a means of slinking off again before you had to justify any of your claims.

Bye bye, Dustin.

AJ Philips,
Allow me summarise:

1. You don’t know (or won’t acknowledge) the meaning of the word ‘equality’ even after you yourself provided the link to the Oxford dictionary definition.

2. You don’t know (or won’t acknowledge) the meaning of the word ‘eligibility’ even though that’s very likely in the same Oxford dictionary.

3. You think 1 and 2 “overlap” and that equality is somehow elastic or could have an alternate definition, none of which are noted in the dictionary.
I concluded your dictionary might only exist in the Matrix.

4. I provided five examples where eligibility impacts equality seen in everyday life, and over which no one bats an eyelid.
In the only example addressed, you asserted “balancing competition” as the reason mixed doubles tennis is reasonable. You know . . completely missing the point on one, while studiously avoiding engaging the others.

5. You think allowing SSM places a burden of proof on the existing law while avoiding making any case for the affirmative, all the while admitting gay folk bring nothing to the institution.
To support this, you cite US criminal law as if US law or any criminal law is relevant to the issue.
As a lawyer, I find this incomprehensible.
If SSM were to be judged under criminal law, you’d be behind bars, valiantly calling out . . “it’s the vibe”.

6. You think I “use[d] that [US legal burden of proof] to try to make me look foolish.”
Why would I do that while you’re doing such an excellent job.

Honestly, it’s like having a conversation with Humpty Dumpty.

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."

AJ Philips writes:
“Pity, I even had something in mind.”

Too late.
The case is closed. You could always appeal, but given you never made a case in the first place, I don’t like your chances of having it heard.

Dear Yuyutsu,

Please don't read anything more into what I say.

The point that I was making was that
marriage in this country is a
secular contract presided over by Government.

That is a fact, whether we approve of it or not.
All marriages are required to be registered to
be legally recognised - whether they are performed
by celebrants or religious ministers.

I didn’t think you’d be gone very long, Dustin.

<<1. You don’t know (or won’t acknowledge) the meaning of the word ‘equality’ even after you yourself provided the link to the Oxford dictionary definition.>>

No, I did. You, on the other hand, inserted into the definition your own assertion that equality must be absolute.

<<2. You don’t know (or won’t acknowledge) the meaning of the word ‘eligibility’ …>>

No, I do. For your convenience:

http://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/eligibility

<<3. You think 1 and 2 “overlap” and that equality is somehow elastic or could have an alternate definition, none of which are noted in the dictionary.>>

Indeed equality and eligibility can overlap. You demonstrate this further down. You were the only one who strayed from the definition of ‘equality’.

<<4. I provided five examples where eligibility impacts equality seen in everyday life …>>

So, you do agree that the two can overlap now?

All five of your examples had rational reasons as to why eligibility impacted equality. You are yet to provide a reason as to why same-sex couples should not be eligible to marry.

<<5. You think allowing SSM places a burden of proof on the existing law while avoiding making any case for the affirmative …>>

Yes, it does. In civilised societies, rights are granted until it can be shown why they should be taken away, not the other way around.

<<… all the while admitting gay folk bring nothing to the institution.>>

Firstly, you are yet to explain why they should. Secondly, I admitted nothing of the sort. I was agreeing with you for the sake of argument, yet you still cannot explain why gay people should not be allowed to marry.

<<To support this, you cite US criminal law as if US law or any criminal law is relevant to the issue.>>

No, I cited a Wiki article on the legal burden of proof. That it spoke of US law was irrelevant. We're a little slow to learn, aren't we Dustin?

<<As a lawyer, I find this incomprehensible.>>

You’re a lawyer now, are you? I doubt that.

Try again, Dustin.

Dear Foxy,

«The point that I was making was that marriage in this country is a secular contract presided over by Government.»

Marriage is marriage: it occurs in heaven, or in heart-space if you like, irrespective where on physical earth the couple happens to stand.

And by the way, marriages occurred in this country for millennia before it had any government.

«All marriages are required to be registered to be legally recognised»

Big deal, so what if they are not legally recognised; and who needs such recognition anyway? Marriages that are not registered are still marriages!

Conversely also, it is extremely common for false-marriages to be legally recognised, when no marriage has actually taken place.

AJ Philips,

No.
The words describe different and discreet concepts.

Equality speaks to the sameness of things. It provides precision.The meaning is indeed absolute.
If it were not absolute, we could substitute the word ‘similar’.
You might have an equal number of apples and oranges. The fruit are different.

Eligibility speaks of the capacity to moderate, discriminate or qualify.
You might want to make an apple pie and that would see the oranges ineligible; but not if you were making a fruit salad.

Legally, it’s for those reasons that all people are deemed equal because they’re not restricted from marriage per se.
The qualifier is their eligibility which restricts marriage to those of opposite sex.

The concepts of equality and eligibility, while different, work on concert.
Perhaps that’s what you meant by “overlap”?

Alternatively, I guess, your argument might be that an apple pie is the same thing as a fruit salad . . because . . Humpty Dumpty.

Here’s the really amusing thing, though.
If the ’no’ vote gets up, you won’t know why you lost.
If the ‘yes’ vote gets up, you won’t know why you won.

Yuyutsu,

Homosexual people can't have kids: you simply have to accept you're wrong!

Dear CE,

Tell that to the children of Dr K. Phelps and
many others.

How about the right of children of gay people to not feel stigmatised by living in a society which says that their parents should not be allowed to get married?
<

Dear AJP,

You are asking why the problem should not be allowed to develop more problems?

The children of gay parents should never have been put in this situation to begin with.... if you want to open pandoras box the rest of society had the absolute right to say NO to your bulldust buddy!

Dear Cupric,

A relative of mine is homosexual and has two sons, born to him and the same lesbian mother, using that same natural procedure that heterosexual couples use. It's a biological fact.

yuyutsu,

You are hardly talking about lesbians and gays then!

The YES vote is lost in principal... no wonder people avoid them in society!

That they do, Dustin.

<<The words describe different and discreet concepts.>>

However, they can still overlap, as both you and I demonstrated.

<<Equality speaks to the sameness of things.>>

Broadly speaking, yes. In this sense, however, it refers to equal treatment with regards to “status, rights, or opportunities.”

http://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/equality

<<If [the definition of equality] were not absolute, we could substitute the word ‘similar’.>>

No, once again:

“If it were absolute, then we’d need to release prisoners because they’re not being treated equally.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7880#243937)

“In Australia, women were given the right to vote before indigenous people were. But did that mean there was no equality at all, even though (white) women were being treated equally to (white) men?” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7880#243937)

You never did address those, did you? In fact, I’d say you “studiously avoided” them.

<<You might have an equal number of apples and oranges. The fruit are different.>>

Irrelevant equivocation.

<<Eligibility speaks of the capacity to moderate, discriminate or qualify.>>

Correct, and if one group is moderated, discriminated against, or qualifies differently to another group, without good cause, then we have inequality.

<<The qualifier is their eligibility which restricts marriage to those of opposite sex.>>

Okay, so how about you finally tell us why gay people shouldn’t qualify to marry each other? You keep dodging this question.

<<The concepts of equality and eligibility, while different, work on concert.>>

Correct.

<<Perhaps that&#146;s what you meant by “overlap”?>>

Somewhat. The two concepts are not entirely distinct. One will always invoke considerations regarding the other, when it comes to the treatment of individuals and groups.

<<If the 'no’ vote gets up, you won’t know why you lost. If the ‘yes’ vote gets up, you won’t know why you won.>>

Why is that?

--

Cupid Embarrasment,

I've already pointed out that, 'Won't somebody please think of the Children!', is an irrelevant angle of approach because same-sex couples are already having children. You're only rebuttal to this was to point out the irrelevant fact that they cannot produce children together.

Cupid Embarrasment,

I've already pointed out that, 'Won't somebody please think of the Children!', is an irrelevant angle of approach because same-sex couples are already having children. You're only rebuttal to this was to point out the irrelevant fact that they cannot produce children together.
Posted by AJ Philips, Monday, 4 September 2017 2:48:42 PM
<<

You can't tell us why the children don't matter and expect us to believe you when you try and say our points are irrelevant: we are the mainstream of society ...without us their would be no children or even a society for that matter!

Without us their would be no technology in the first place to try and corrupt to pretend gays can have kids: the simple fact remains that they can't!

Gays can't have kids... you can't tell me that is an irrelevant point: you simply can't!

Dear CE,

Gays have children. Through a variety of means.
Whether through adoption, from previous marriages,
through surrogacy, or through IVF.

Today with the rapid advances in the availability
and technology of artificial insemination lesbian
women are able to become mothers without having
had any heterosexual relationships at all.

Therefore your statement that gays can't have children
is wrong.

I'm sorry foxy: all you are doing is proving the point that gays can't have kids.

That's why gay marriage was never an institution.

AJ Philips,

I’ve compiled a list of words you don’t understand just from your last post:

equality
similar
overlap
absolute
demonstrated
irrelevant
equivocation
somewhat
entirely
distinct

E&OE

But you got “eligibility” correct this time so that’s something .
Still, 1/11 is an F.

If we can’t agree on the meanings of words, there’s little prospect that sentences constructed with those words will have the same meaning to both parties.

Therefor, any progress when faced with such overwhelming comprehension issues is pointless.

Some may argue family history isn't important to keep. If that logic was taken, I could argue, having children is not important. The following shows what some people are doing in regards to maintaining family history in terms of elderly residents:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-08/modbury-palliative-patients-biography-program/8785464

The link: "It's an opportunity for them (the people) to leave behind some memories for their families, it also gives them a chance to reflect on their lives and where they were and where they're at."

Some other stories show very different situations. These are still not being addressed at present by some who simply do not want to face up a wider scope of issues using lines like:

<<Homosexual people can have kids>>

The case of ABC journalist Sarah Dingle though shows why this is irresponsible.

Conceived in 1982 at the fertility clinic at Sydney's Royal North Shore Hospital, Ms Dingle at 27, was advised by her mother that she was conceived using donor sperm. This shocked the ABC journalist, who adored her father and was upset by his premature death.

Sarah Dingle's hospital records were altered, impeding her search for her donor father.

Sarah would wake up in the morning or come home in the evening and look at my face in the mirror and literally did not recognise her own face.

Ms Dingle went in search of her biological heritage. What she found out came as a shock to her mother, Siew Dingle. Without Mrs Dingle's consent, someone had cut out the donor's code from the section of her record documenting Sarah's conception and then attached the altered paperwork to a sheet of white paper, making the damage less evident.

Sarah couldn't believe that a public hospital which was creating human life was actually going back and destroying the records of what they'd done.

The hospital agreed Ms Dingle's case was a serious problem.

This issue clearly must be addressed as children are feeling cut out and violated at present.

Dear Cupric,

«You are hardly talking about lesbians and gays then!»

Half-correct: I am talking about a lesbian and a homosexual (non-gay) man.
They have done it twice, using the natural method, with the stimulating help of their regular same-sex partners (I didn't ask for the raw details, whether they were also in the same bed or just standing/sitting besides it).

---

Dear Foxy,

«Gays have children. Through a variety of means.»

Also Liberals, Communists, Greens, Laborites, Republicans, Democrats, etc. etc.: having children has little to do with political persuasion.

«Whether through adoption, from previous marriages, through surrogacy, or through IVF.

Yes, but why omit the most obvious method of all - the natural one!?

Dustin,

You feel the ‘US law’ line was wearing a bit thin there, did you? Yeah, I don’t blame you. Not sure how far this next shtick of yours is going to get you, though.

<<I’ve compiled a list of words you don’t understand just from your last post:>>

Just pick out some words and claim that I don’t understand them. Who needs evidence when you can make all up, eh?

<<If we can’t agree on the meanings of words, there’s little prospect that sentences constructed with those words will have the same meaning to both parties.>>

And with that, he slinks off again.

I guess we’re just never going to find out how the concept of equality is supposedly absolute, despite the possibility of its existence within groups. Or, more importantly, why gay people should not be eligible to marry each other.

It’s an astonishing co-incidence, don’t you think, that you always seem to suddenly realise discussion between us is useless at the very same time that you exhaust all avenues for ducking and weaving?

Bye bye, Dustin.

--

NathanJ,

I don’t think anyone’s argued that knowledge of one’s family history isn’t important, just that it needs to be considered in the grand scheme of things, if one is going to present it as an argument against same-sex marriage.

Dear Yuyutsu,

The "natural way" is not the only option in
today's modern world. And many heterosexual couples
are not able to
have children the "natural way."
So that argument no longer applies.

Dear CE,

Times change - get used to it.

Dear Yuyutsu,

The "natural way" is not the only option in
today's modern world. And many heterosexual couples
are not able to
have children the "natural way."
So that argument no longer applies.

Dear CE,

Times change - get used to it.
Posted by Foxy, Wednesday, 6 September 2017 2:43:55 PM
<<

Foxy: are you saying everyone must do what you say?

The natural way is what society needs because that is what made it... Not your pathetic ideas trying to be feministically paraded around like the latest uniform of adultery!

You should get a brain!

Dear meme ...

I don't have the time (or the crayons) to
explain things to you.

Cheers.