Australia to vote on Gay marrige - Page 10

On October 21 2011 06:36 Darkalbino wrote:


Any way, I am yet to see an Australian politics thread. So feel free to discuss both the main article and any other issues.

On October 21 2011 08:12 DoubleReed wrote:
There is zero talk about churches being forced to marry anyone. If you think government shouldn't meddle with religion then how about people that believe that homosexual marriages are perfectly okay with their religion? Do you think they should have to register for "partnerships" while heterosexuals register for marriages?

On October 21 2011 10:34 dtvu wrote:


Well it's not like I flaming or trolling, I merely presented my views with a comment. How can we have a proper discussion of people are instantly saying someone's views are wrong. There are no black and white, only grey areas. This is why there's discussion. Key note that I have no problem with gay marriages. It's funny how even if you are on their side, you have to say what they want you to say. This is reverse oppression isn't it?

On October 21 2011 09:31 vetinari wrote:
As for the last: citation please. From what I recall, the only study to deal with that was self reporting early and mid childhood outcomes.

What I want to see, is if two gay parents are more/less likely to raise productive and law abiding adult citizens, than the traditional nuclear family (controlling for income). Frankly, I don't give a shit if children are happier or not from ages 5-12, if from 18 onwards they are lazy, narcissistic pricks.

Analyses indicated that adolescents were functioning well and that their adjustment was not
associated with family type. Adolescents whose parents described closer relationships with
them reported less delinquent behavior and substance use, suggesting that the quality of
parent–adolescent relationships better predicts adolescent outcomes than does family type.

Despite considerable variation in the quality of their samples, research design, measurement methods, and data analysis techniques, the findings to date have been remarkably consistent. Empirical studies comparing children raised by sexual minority parents with those raised by otherwise comparable heterosexual parents have not found reliable disparities in mental health or social adjustment (Patterson, 1992, 2000; Perrin, 2002; Stacey & Biblarz, 2001; see also Wainright et al., 2004). Differences have not been found in parenting ability between lesbian mothers and heterosexual mothers (Golombok et al., 2003; Parks, 1998; Perrin, 2002). Studies examining gay fathers are fewer in number (e.g., Bigner & Jacobsen, 1989, 1992;
Miller, 1979) but do not show that gay men are any less fit or able as parents than heterosexual men (for reviews, see Patterson, 2004; Perrin & Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health, 2002).

On October 21 2011 10:30 Charlatan wrote:
As the OP said, I think the country is much too homophobic for this to actually pass. (And it's quite refreshing to see something besides an overzealous "patriot" talking about Australia. The minute I criticise anything about this country around my friends, I'm told I should find somewhere I think is better.)

I don't know why people are arguing that it's unnatural. That's a flimsy suggestion, and seems like a cheap substitute for "God wouldn't allow it".

On October 21 2011 10:39 Belisarius wrote:
I've never quite understood the issue here. To my knowledge, there are no practical legal differences between a married heterosexual couple and a gay couple. The gay couple becomes a de facto partnership and are treated under the law as though they were married.

If I'm wrong, by all means correct me, but it it seems like this whole thing is an argument over the definition of a word. There's little legal discrimination left, even in Australia. If there is, I agree it should probably be removed... but what's wrong with a gay union being called something other than marriage?

On October 21 2011 10:40 Phenny wrote:


I'd have to disagree, I've rarely come across anyone who has anything against it and despite some of the boganesque attitudes held by many, homosexuality seems to be very widely accepted from what I've seen.

EDIT: Of course I don't know everyone, just saying this from the interactions I've had with people.

On October 21 2011 10:47 Charlatan wrote:


I probably shouldn't speak for the whole country based on my own interactions, but homophobia has been a consistent attitude amongst acquaintances and strangers. I'd be happy to eat my words, should this legislation pass.

On October 21 2011 10:47 Charlatan wrote:


I probably shouldn't speak for the whole country based on my own interactions, but homophobia has been a consistent attitude amongst acquaintances and strangers. I'd be happy to eat my words, should this legislation pass.

On October 21 2011 10:39 Belisarius wrote:
I've never quite understood the issue here. To my knowledge, there are no practical legal differences between a married heterosexual couple and a gay couple. The gay couple becomes a de facto partnership and are treated under the law as though they were married.

If I'm wrong, by all means correct me, but it it seems like this whole thing is an argument over the definition of a word. There's little legal discrimination left, even in Australia. If there is, I agree it should probably be removed... but what's wrong with a gay union being called something other than marriage?

On October 21 2011 10:55 Babs1337 wrote:
Definitely against gay marriage, it really is a slippery slope this equality for everyone BS. If they really want equality they should stop giving grants to people 1/8th aboriginal and cease affirmative action.

What really irks me is the notion of gay unions raising children, do they have no respect for the rights of children? Every child should have the right to have a Mother and a Father.

On October 21 2011 11:17 Whitewing wrote:


Marriage has social value. Being able to say that you are married is valuable, even if it's no functionally different from a civil union in a legal perspective. Using a different term is segregation, which is inherently unjust.

On October 21 2011 10:55 Babs1337 wrote:
Definitely against gay marriage, it really is a slippery slope this equality for everyone BS. If they really want equality they should stop giving grants to people 1/8th aboriginal and cease affirmative action.

What really irks me is the notion of gay unions raising children, do they have no respect for the rights of children? Every child should have the right to have a Mother and a Father.