Ok, so if we do get a 'yes vote' could this then lead to our schools being forced to refrain from using the words 'Mum and Dad' to be replaced by say 'your parents' or 'your carers'?

Let's face it, Dick and Dora are gone because not all kids have a mum and dad at home.

As I say, the gay marriage debate is not the real issue here, it's about a tiny minority fighting to change the majority because most normal folk accept the queer lifestyles these people lead, but recognition as being in an equal relationship is where the line is being crossed.

Dear rehctub,

Why do you assume that schools will be "forced" to do
anything of the kind?

Gay parents do exist and have existed for quite some
time and as far as I'm aware schools have not "forced"
anyone to refrain from any sort of language thus far
and I don't see that happening in the future either.
If you 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 today we do have an immense range of family and
kinship patterns and that the family, like any other
social institution has changed through time and will
continue to do so - whether you recognise its legitimacy
or not.

Cannot see how that would follow - when I was teaching there were kids in my classes that came from single sex households. Overheard one conversation:
"what is it like having two mums?"
"well it is rather good, for if one sick there is always an other one to cook"
The only people with hang-ups tend to be the adults - the kids are used to coping with a variety of different family groupings; some ;live with their biological parents, some do not. Some, thanks to multiple divorces have ended up living with adults who have no biological relationship with them.
As for 'special persons day' that is one of these clumsy ideas that some bureaucrat might come up with but will be rejected by the kids. Already there are kids who are accustomed to talking about Judy and Bert rather than Mum and Dad. All that matters is that the kids live in a home where they are valued.
As far marriage equality goes that too is something that agitates adults - the kids really dont care.

The Depts of Education, universities and others who depend on the taxpayer's dollar are beavering away, working on inclusive language guides that become policy. It has been going on for years and is obvious in government publications. More victim groups are being added.

Students of the past thirty years will be familiar with strategies and the growing intensity. Some of it is OK, but that depends on the school principal and university department.

The lesson is that parents should do their very best to be engaged somehow with children's education and be listening, not reacting (drives their students away), when they want to talk about school.

«could this then lead to our schools being forced to refrain from»

Well this is a contradiction in terms: if the schools in question were indeed "our", then we would have been able to have there whatever policies we liked!

So let's not focus on petty issues - the root problem, Rehctub, is that your children are being forced to attend schools (or otherwise effectively pay a large fine) that are NOT yours, wherein they can be indoctrinated by others against your will.

Once compulsory "education" is repealed, I see no problem if the state and its supporters apply whatever policies they like in THEIR schools.

I think you're right BAYGON, kid's couldn't careless whether they have a single sex couple at home, as long as they are well cared for and protected from the wiles of the world. As you're a former teacher I was wondering therefore whether or not we're doing a disservice to our kids by failing to acquaint them with the benefits of a normal heterosexual relationship? And yet we continue to familiarise them with the apparent normality of a same sex relationship. Before they've even been given a chance to see, and question for themselves, the opposing view? Just a question is all

Yuyutsu,

You have a point there.

Hence the success of independent schools.

Asian migrants vote with their feet and send their children to private coaching colleges and to private schools. Where the students can concentrate on their scholastic pursuits and enjoy their youth and at their own pace.

Dear BAYGON,

Well said.

In today's classrooms there are children from a
variety of families. Two mums, two dads, single-
parents, foster families, grand-parents raising
grand-children, older siblings in charge, households
with a variety of people in them, as well as the
traditional family forms.

Children, as long as they are given the care, love,
and security, that they need, will grow up to be
decent human beings.

Our language reflects our view of the world and so it
is always changing. New words are being added all the
time as discoveries are made in medicine, science
and technology. Words for things no longer in use are
dropped from our everyday language.

In the same way, new words are used for sociological
changes (changes in the way society functions). For
example, words like "unisex" reflect our changed
attitudes to men and women. This word would have been
meaningless in past years when men and women were
expected to dress and act differently.
Many "old fashioned" words show us very clearly how
people viewed one another.

For example females were expected to behave in ways very
different from men. While "loose morals" were frowned on
by society in general, there was a tendency to "look the
other way" where men were concerned. A man's behaviour
had to be very bad indeed for him to be branded a "rake"
or "libertine". It was the accepted thing for a man to
keep a mistress, but 'gently bred' women were not
supposed to be aware of it. Women whose behaviour was
considered too "permissive" were called "hussies" and
"trollops".

Nowadays, we don't make such harsh distinctions between
the sexes, and so while these words are still used by some,
the "sting" has been taken out of them.

These are just some examples of words and their meanings
there are many terms which reflect the feeling of some
people - for example - "nig*er," "bo*ng," "dago", "wog,"
these "outmoded" words are no longer acceptable to most
people. Hopefully, with time "poofters," "queers,"
"fags," and "fruits" will also eventually disappear from
the vocabulary.

Foxy, to argue there are no consequences is just illogical!

For the media and our elected politicians to argue the no vote don't have a right to examine the potential consequences goes against the very method anyone was ever raised ever: the consequences are already here... it's pure insanity to have a debate where no one is allowed to speak!

Modern Educayshun

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKcWu0tsiZM

Dear meme...

Nobody is suggesting for one minute
that you are not allowed to
speak. Go right ahead. Of course with speaking
you do run the risk of not being listened to -
depending on what you're saying and whether it's
credible. That's the risk you take.

But go ahead.

Give it your best shot!

Foxy, I'm afraid you are wrong when you state that family dynamics don't effect children's outcomes as long as they are caring.
Multiple studies have been done on the outcomes for children raised without fathers and the facts are not encouraging. Children raised without fathers have higher levels of suicide, criminal activity, drug and alcohol problems, mental health problems, lower educational outcomes, lower income levels as adults.
Some of these outcomes have been attributed to the fact that single parent families generally have lower incomes, but not all. For instance, girls without fathers enter puberty earlier, and are far more likely to have a teen pregnancy.
There are testimonies from children raised by lesbian couples who say that despite having a loving supportive home they still desperately wanted to know who their fathers were and to have regular contact with them.
And earlier this year the ABC did a documentary called " anonymous sperm donors" which examined the trauma suffered by children who didn't know who their fathers were and who were actually spending a lot of time and money trying to trace them.
Sometimes love is not enough.

Yuyutsu has finally landed a point about not consenting to the state.
Foxy answers "Of course with speaking you do run the risk of not being listened to - depending on what you're saying and whether it's
credible."
-
If a kid has information about families she can switch off the big mouth gabbling rubbish. Or even choose to learn English that was forced upon the noble , independent and exemplary Britons.

Dear Big Nana,

We've gone down this path previously where
so called "studies" have been cited and
discredited. If you have any reputable
studies that have been done, kindly
provide them for us.

Love is not enough - you say.

I'm sure that this adage would probably apply
to various circumstances and cases - not
just to same-sex couples, single-parents,
et cetera.

Foxy, I'm saying the yes vote is campaigning against the validity of the no vote to even examine consequences.

Sham media and sham politicians are even saying it!

What is democracy if you're not even allowed to discuss possible consequences when every child ever raised ever was taught to examine the possible consequences?

Go Australia: where are we allowed to go again?

what Foxy really means that if facts don't confirm her perverted narrative then they don't count.

No runner that is your usual method of debating
on this forum. Not mine.

Dear meme...

You don't need anyone's position to debate
an issue. And there's nutters on both sides.
So ignore those who you feel
are against your right to speak out.
Or better still, take positive action
and make your feelings felt by voting in the
postal survey. Have your say. We've been
given this opportunity. We should take it.

The survey should come in at 50-50 . Libs will blame Labor for Rudd-Gillard carbon credit damage to Budget and Labor will blame Malcolm for being PM, Greens will go to UN for research on gay whales, P Hanson will deny the plane was a gift and the ABC will do a special report on the response to the survey in Qld schools to be attached to a Bill for gay colours on Qantas planes leading to amendments to Marriage Act in the 2024 elections after debate in Q & A.

//Ok, so if we do get a 'yes vote' could this then lead to our schools being forced to refrain from using the words 'Mum and Dad' to be replaced by say 'your parents' or 'your carers'?//

It could: as far as I can see, it does not break any of the laws of nature. Therefore, it is possible.

But that doesn't tell you much. Possible covers everything from the infinitesimally improbable to the almost entirely certain. But it's not of much interest to bookkeepers and other probability nerds. What are the odds of a certain outcome? In easily expressed ratios? That's all the punters are interested in.

//I'm afraid you are wrong when you state that family dynamics don't effect children's outcomes as long as they are caring.//

Funny, all your studies seem to be about children raised without fathers... looks a bit like cherry-picking. Why the fixation on fathers?

What about children raised without mothers? Orphans? Children raised in traditional kibbutzim?

Have you considered the possibility that some kids are better off without their biological fathers? Some fathers are wife-beaters. Some fathers hit their kids as well. And the very worst of the worst rape them... children are much more likely to be raped by family member than a stranger, and most child rapists are men.

And this is where we get the phrase 'lies, damned lies, and statistics'. Because they're easy to twist to suit one's rhetoric.

I don't mind a bit of statistics: it's fine when you're doing thermodynamics. But I'm often sceptical about the way they are used in the soft sciences, and the way that subsequently filters through into rhetoric.

I think when it comes to the soft sciences, fixating on the mean does more harm than good: there is no perfectly average person, that's just a sociologist's wet dream. These are people we're dealing with, not numbers: forget the statistics and deal with people on a case-by-case basis.

//Sometimes love is not enough.//

And sometimes the degree of relation is not enough.

"What about children raised without mothers? Orphans?"

There would be oranges and sunshine,
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/film-news/8014953/Oranges-and-Sunshine-Emily-Watson-stars-in-child-migrant-scandal-film.html

I would use studies on children's without mothers but there are very few of them, probably because missing fathers are so much more common than missing mothers.
Foxy, I suggest you reread what I wrote. I didn't say studies about children raised in same sex homes, I said children raised without fathers.
You also ignored my comments about evidence from children of gay families who have expressed their deep anguish at being deliberately denied access to one biological parent. Also the program on sperm donors.
All this talk about all you need is love also totally ignores the fact that the level of domestic violence is just as high, and in some places higher in same sex relations than in opposite sex relationships and the breakdown rate in relationships is just as high.
So, as well as being denied one biological parent, a child in a same sex household has the same, if not higher chance of living in a dysfunctional home anyway.

//I would use studies on children's without mothers but there are very few of them//

... and? It's not like a small sample size has bothered you before.

You can't compare apples with turnips just because it makes the numbers look better.

//I said children raised without fathers.//

Because you like picking cherries.

//All this talk about all you need is love also totally ignores the fact that the level of domestic violence is just as high, and in some places higher in same sex relations than in opposite sex relationships and the breakdown rate in relationships is just as high.//

You really didn't get the point of my last past on the tyranny of the average, did you dear?

Forget your sociology and worry about people instead.

Dear Big Nana,

Please supply us with evidence to support
your claims.

Thank You.

Well we will wait and see wont we.

Watching Q&A last night a young Chinese man expressed he was Homosexual and his relationship with his male partner is not accepted in Chinese family culture.

Because Australia is a Multicultural Nation if SSM is passed as Law then his family culture will be identified at law as criminal because it does not accept his relationship as normal. This then leads to having to educate that all relationships of love are equal and normal.

Once children learn where babies are conceived and born, the question remains who is the father? Science and biology is downplayed to the emotion of sentimentality to cater for the sensitive child with two mums or two fathers. We are returning to the primitive wild, where children do not know their father, or their mother. Genetic heritage is not seen as important

How has SSM changed Canada 10 years on?

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/11/6758/

Problems with SSM in other countries

http://speakupaustralia.com/

Just for some balance - here are five worst arguments
for the no campaign:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-06/same-sex-marriage-five-worst-arguments-for-no-campaign/8871020

And here are the experiences of same-sex marriage in Ireland:

http://www.smh.com.au/world/this-wasnt-a-political-campaign-irelands-samesex-marriage-vote-and-ours-20170915-gyi3il.html

cont'd ...

Quoting from one of the links:

"The Anglican Church itself was created so Henry VIII
could get divorced - and let's not forget that Jesus
was raised by a man who was not his biological father,
which might suggest the virtue of sympathy for blended
families. The idea that kids need the active involvement
of a father and a mother to be "normal" is not borne
out by the data, or in the many same-sex and single parent
families we already have, but it remains powerful after
centuries of being the social norm."

"Of-course, this has very little to do with the question
at hand," on the postal survey.

So far I have not seen any comment that states in what way the vote (whichever way it goes) will impact on them. It surely is no concern of mine how other people organize their lives? No-one has demanded that if a yes vote go ahead that I need to find a bloke to marry. This whole debate is little more than a storm in a teacup. There surely are far more important issues to be worried about than who marries whom?

Dear BAYGON,

You're absolutely right - this does not matter to most
people. Our lives will go on. However, it does matter
to those same-sex couples who do want to marry and
have their marriages registered by the government with
all the legal privileges that this allows and it is
for them and their families that we are being given
the opportunity to answer yes or no to the question that
will decide the fate of whether they will be allowed to
marry or not in this country.

Seeing as so much money is being spent on this survey
for us to be given the opportunity to have a say in this
matter the least we can do is respond.

https://www.spectator.com.au/2017/09/whats-changed-in-britain-since-same-sex-marriage/

BAYGOB & Foxy,

How is the extension of 'married' status and the gaining of extra entitlements therefrom being funded? Examples being various partner leave entitlements, accompanied travel, living and superannuation. Think of public servants and their conditions.

Where for years workers have been receiving very parsimonious pay rises, the equivalent of a milkshake or cup of coffee, the additional benefits that accrue to more who gain the status of 'married' are substantial indeed. Taking the squeeze on that posting is worth many thousands of dollars.

Since conditions are packaged and costed under workplace bargaining agreements, single workers are barred from the extra entitlements, a loss, and still must subsidise them (a second loss).

Many singles are young workers on lower remunerations anyhow, are far more likely to be casualised or (very) temporary workforce, are the first to be laid off, do not enjoy the advantage of couples such as sharing accommodation (cheaper per each), cheaper private health and other reductions.

Commonwealth superannuation CPS, for example, the Fund, the taxpayer, has to stump up for a very large increase in partner benefits to be paid and for the life of the partner.

SSM must now bring into the limelight and public debate the unfairness of 'marrieds' receiving discounts and entitlements. If such unfairness is to be continued, perhaps a card restricting same to parents and carers of child minors to age 18 yrs and dependent students only.

Why should singles, young workers especially, be supporting the 'love' choices of others who, as well, are far better off than they are?

Sorry, that should be BAYGON

From a report by a Telstra Employee:
Millions of Australians don’t want to fall foul of the anti-discrimination laws that come with same-sex marriage – because these laws would be used as legal weapons to prosecute anyone who won’t conform.
Many Australian employees are already coming under increasing pressure to comply with increasingly restrictive policies around “politically correct” speech, and are being compelled to participate in LGBTQI pride events at work.
A Telstra employee says:
“Even though I declined to attend the ‘Wear It Purple’ Day meeting, I have since been re-sent the meeting invite by an Executive Director – 6 times! The meeting invite says staff are ‘required’ (not ‘optional’) attendees.”
It will only get worse if same-sex marriage is legalised in Australia.

Dear Josephus,

You need to broaden your reading.
Seriously.

It seems that you are relying on the infamous -
Miranda Devine (unfortunately, not so devine),
and the rubbish of the Daily Telegraph
both of which have little credibility
especially when they print articles that use
terms like "The Rainbow
Gestapo - aka the Waffen SSM" and then they criticise
the "illiberal" nature of LGBTIQ activism.

How can any rational person give this sort of
nonsense any credibility

Foxy,
Sounds like your hate speech for Miranda Devine, which is now identified by George Brandis as considered a crime in the SSM debate.

Give the evidence that Telstra did not enforce its ruling

Dear Josephus,

Give the evidence that they did.

The Daily Telegraph and Ms "Devine"
are not credible sources.

cont'd ...

BTW: criticising a journalist for their
bigoted unsupported and non factual
writing is not "hate speech."

But using language like "Rainbow Gestapo,
aka the Waffen SSM" certainly is!

Josephus, ( to Foxy), "Sounds like your hate speech for Miranda Devine, which is now identified by George Brandis as considered a crime in the SSM debate"

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/religionandethicsreport/the-culture-war-of-marriage-equality-in-australia/8376570

- The audio is well worth listening to.

The following link is worth reading:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-31/what-people-in-tony-abbots-seat-think-about-same-sex-marriage/8857294

Interesting times ahead.

Hi FOXY...

Thank you for the Link. It would seem to be a pretty balanced representation with the; 'Yes' Vs the 'No' folk.

@leoj

You do not change an unfair system by consolidating unfairness. You are quite right there are a range of quite arbitrary factors which discriminate against people. I see no justification for differentiating between singles and married folk - a fair tax system can iron out any 'wrinkles'.
So I agree with you that the way singles and married folk are treated is fundamentally unfair but that of itself is no reason to argue that we should remedy that by maintaining another layer of unfairness.