Discrimination is driving the gay marriage debate

Patrick says:

07:10am | 12/01/10

Meanwhile in Uganda, some of those American evangelists have been up to no good. Apparently advocating government sanctioned murder is now compatible with family values.

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/the-role-of-us-evangelists-in-ugandas-kill-the-gays-bill-20100111-m2lf.html

Dave C says:

07:20am | 12/01/10

So if Australia had a referendum on the issue and the majority voted to allow Gay Marriage and/or Gay couples to legally adopt then the Gay Lobby wouldnt start whooping and cheering in a distasteful display say like on mardi gras night. Why are gays allowed this arrogant display of sexually that the rest of us have to tolerate and yet when senators in the USA win a vote they are called distasteful.

As for the bit about referendums if we had that same referendum and it was passed It would also give those who voted NO the right to say that “the much vaunted majority isn’t always on the right side of history – from Nazi Germany to civil rights to White Australia, we the people have often gotten it wrong.”

Honestly I would probably vote yes is such a referendum because I believe that Gays should not be discriminated against but what I cant stand is this arrogant sense of entitlement of a minority group to simply say well even if the majority disagree with us the majority are wrong and we are always right. 

Finally a younger relative of mine told me that at a recent University student leadership meeting there was an outcry that the Young Liberals there wanted a “heterosexual officer” and “mens officer” positions created and I was then called a fascist for saying “whats wrong with that if they already have a gay officer and womens officer” and that sums up the attitude of the gay rights lobby really.

Saint says:

07:49am | 12/01/10

Dave C - as a gay man I find your comments so sad because your intolerance and your sense of entitlement as a member of the mainstream to dictate to minorities what scraps they should have from your table is so hard-wired you don’t even know it’s there.

The discussion about who should be allowed to cheer and clap is so silly I almost ignored it, but sadly I clearly need to point out that what is offensive about it is a bunch of people who are cheering their success in denying others basic rights (which the cheerers enjoy) is sickening.

The more worrying issue though is your perception of gays as arrogant and with a sense of entitlement simply because they want the same basic rights you already enjoy. I don’t think we’re arrogant, I think we’re determined. And you’re 100% right, we ARE ENTITLED to the same basic rights as you. So if you perceive a sense of entitlement, you’re spot on.

And finally, just because a majority has a certain point of view does not make them right, which is the whole point of this piece. What gives you and ‘the majority’ the right to decide what basic rights members of minorities have? Read the piece again. Would you dare write this comment if we were talking about, say, the rights of African Americans in the US prior to them achieving equal civil rights or indigenous South Africans during Apartheid? And that is what is so sad. Just when someone like me thinks we have come so far as a society, I am confronted with hard-wired bigotry and homophobia like you display above and I realise we are still very much in the back of the bus.

Dave, I have the right to have my relationship with my partner of 13 years to be legally recognised by the state. I have the right to adopt a child or children if I want to and I am going to keep fighting until I have the rights that I am ENTITLED to, just as you are.

If that upsets you or makes you angry, you have my sympathies.

Kramer says:

08:35am | 12/01/10

Ah, just another reminder that the prince of the air and prince of lies is up to his usual handiwork on earth, ever going down hill. Another reminder to me that the devil will forever try to counterfeit what God created to be good and natural. Two sperm and two eggs will never make a baby, no matter how hard the same sex world try. And I put money on it that man’s “cleverness” will never be able to do that. Never. The core unit of society has, and always will be, man woman and child, in all religions and cultures. What a farce to try to tip that on its head and call it an equal rights thing. What a disgrace! There’s one thing asking for your same sex partner to get your pension, an entirely other thing to enforce your selfish, counterfeit , I don’t feel equal existence on a child. And don’t give me the arguments about heterosexual couples that can’t bear children. There’s nuclear medicine and there’s the nuclear bomb. This is the nuclear bomb, playing with the core unit of society. No doubt, it will only be a matter of time before such a very loud powerful minority with people in positions of power in all parts of society will have their way. Wrong, wrong, wrong. Here’s hoping to it never happening. And, okay, now have your shots at me being a homophobe and bigot. So sick and tired of that. I’m entitled to my own thoughts and feelings and am sick and tired of being told by a whining minority what I need to think and feel. East is East and West is West, and never will the two meet. I’m equally opposed to same sex marriage and adoption/child raring as the other side is for it. Try looking up the definition of bigot. You’ll find that makes the other side just the same to label me that way. Oh, and I don’t fear homosexuals. I work with them and live around them. I just don’t agree with all the equal rights hoo haa playing with the lives of children that don’t get a say until their world is brain washed. Oh, and one day, they will have questions. Questions that the answers to will surely crumble their world. Never forget that.

kirsten says:

09:10am | 12/01/10

F*%k homophobia….we’re over it.

Jamers Hunter says:

09:14am | 12/01/10

if it makes two PEOPLE happy and if thos happy people decide to bring up a child it will develope well in a loving happy household.
Now ifn thes wowser puritanical god botherers want to do something truly useful (try it for a change you might like the experience) they should go out stopping some of the pathetic hetro marrigages fulled by ignorance,booze and living on social security and have them sterilized so they cant bring a child into an unloving violent “home”

Dave C says:

09:16am | 12/01/10

Oh dear saint I think I have touched a raw nerve…...

Firstly I said that I support Gays/Lesbians to have the same rights as hetrosexuals its just they way they go about it that annoys me. You have a sense of entitlement well thats fine but here are some answers to your points raised.

Firstly I didnt initiate the point about cheering and clapping Joel the original writer did. I simply said that the Mardi Gras is an example of Gays cheering and clapping, in fact its more than that it is an annual display of sexuality forced down the throats of the non gay population.

Next If gays want equal rights to marriage and children then give it to them BUT…... once they have that right,

a) No more Gay/Lesbian mardi gras, it was originally a gay protest in the 70s anyway so once the gays have the rights they were protesting for then there is no need for the march. Whilst they are on the march the offensive statues of Fred Nile and anybody else can also be banned.
b) No more special “reverse discrimination” or the more pc “positive discrimination” for gays. Once they have their “entitlements” then thats it

What I am saying is that Gays cant ask for the same rights as the rest of us but at the same time be treated as a special minority that needs special laws and needs its special pride march every year. Now I believe that some gays would probably accept that but there are many that want it both ways and that is what annoys me.

Lastly the majority rules question. By your definition that the majority doesnt always get it right then that means that after 1967 the rednecks could claim that Aboriginals should not be getting recognized as citizens. I dont agree with this at all and I support the result of the referendum however you cant have it both ways. Either a majority decision by a referendum or a democratically elected parliament decides an issue or it doesn’t. If you believe it doesn’t then that means the results of the 1967 referendum for Aboriginals should be challenged by every Redneck in Australia. Or maybe all the hard line right wing business types can say scrapping Work Choices was wrong even though two houses of parliament voted to do so. After all whats the difference between a Gay Rights bill in the USA and a Work Choices bill before an elected parliament. Once a decision is made then thats it and if you are allowed to cry sour grapes then so are all the hard line employers who benefited from workchoices.

In short you cant have it both ways,

Either you have the same rights as the rest of Australia but then you cant be treated as a special minority group and

If you cant accept the democratic process then that means any other group can say any law passed by any parliament was wrong and therefore say F—- you to democracy….

You cant have it both ways

1) Have your rights like the rest of us but then

By all means campaign for your rights but when a result doesn’t go your way in democratic vote by an elected parliament dont then say that democracy is wrong because you are in a minority.

LuckyLady says:

09:18am | 12/01/10

People are People!! Gay or hetrosexual we are all human and whatsmore we are all Aussie. Life is very short.. take that from someone who is mid way in life. It goes in a blink. I honestly can’t see why some don’t have the same rights as others. I am not gay but if i was I would accept it and get on enjoying life. I am not a big advocate of marriage since I am divorced BUT not all marriages end in faliure and why should anyone be deprived? We are Aussies, we are not the same as anyone else and why would we even want to be? We are unique and that should reflect in all areas of life. Good luck to those who are gay, you have support in the hetrosexual community. There are those of us who just want you and every other Aussie to be happy.

Astrid says:

09:21am | 12/01/10

I support the right for gay unions. Whilst you make light of the word marriage, christian churches believe that marriage is ordained by God between a man and a women. Hence the issue with the word marriage.

As far as right are concerned gay relationships should have the same rights as a hetrosexual relationship. But I would like to take it one step more I would like the Government to recognise relationships such as friends ( non sexual). Why can 2 men or 2 women or a man and a women ( non sexual) who are living together have the same rights as everybody else? They to should have the right to be recognised as a couple, they should be able to adopt as well. 

Interestingly enough there is a higher chance that children of gay couple will be gay themselves, weather its the fact that they are uninhibited or they are conditioned it not yet clear.

Barb says:

09:31am | 12/01/10

The government will never allow gays to adopt because these children could then sue the government for denying them their right to a mother and a father, simple. If gays want to become parents they should learn to be straight - there is a mountain of evidence that shows gays can start a fresh, new heterosexual life for themselves if they want it badly enough.

AdamC says:

09:43am | 12/01/10

I can understand the response of people like Dave C to gay marriage activists, but it is a shame if it rubs off on all of us generally. When these activists bang on about equality and civil rights as if the entitlement of same-sex couples to marry is so overwhelmingly self-evident that only an idiotic bigot could possibly oppose the idea, they do all of us a disservice. The fact is, this apparently God-given right hasn’t occurred to any other society in human history – gay marriage advocates need to do more to convince doubters, not smear and denounce them.

For me and, I would imagine, many other waverers on this issue, part of the problem is that it is not clear to me that same-sex couples need to marry to get the same rights as heterosexual couples. The NSW adoption laws create a far greater mischief than the, mainly symbolic, prohibition on gay marriage.

James says:

09:44am | 12/01/10

The difference Dave C is that Mardi Gras is not about depriving anyone of anything.  If you, as a straight person (I assume), do not like it, you can choose to ignore it.  If a gay couple in New Jersey do not like the fact they cannot marry, they have no choice in the matter but to be discriminated against for their sexuality.  Just another case of big government intruding in peoples’ bedrooms.

DougB says:

09:49am | 12/01/10

Saint,
The right to have children is not decided by Government or Referendums.  It was decided years ago by God or evolution (depending on your belief).  So you and your partnere feel free to go at it naturally, until you are successful in having a child.

That is your right.

AJ says:

09:50am | 12/01/10

Nice article.

Hopefully all States and Territories throughout Australia will eventually follow the lead of Western Australia and the Australian Capital Territory in respect of adoption by same-sex couples (although they’ll obviously still be subject to the prohibitions against same-sex couples for international adoptions). It’s odd that in Queensland a same-sex couple can be foster parents, but cannot legally adopt their foster child if they wanted to do so (and if it was in the best interests of the child).

And while the Civil Partnership legislation in the ACT is a good first-step, it would be nice if same-sex couples were allowed to “marry” in all States and Territories of Australia.

The right for same-sex couples to marry and to adopt seems to be inevitable, but sooner would be better than later.

cats says:

09:58am | 12/01/10

homphobes are wrong, homosexuality is a natural occurence and happens in many different species of animals (humans are animals, no matter how much you might not want that to be). I don’t believe in God, i believe in science and evolution.

The anti-gay marriage brigade has no arguement, because its not only religious people who marry. If they are using God as a reason that homosexuals not marry, then they must also use God as a reason atheists must not marry for it to make sense. Therefore, it does not make sense.

As for not letting them adopt - wtf? Yet they let single parent celebrities adopt children? Or they let single parents keep their children? Two parents are better than one, no matter what the sex. However it is true that homosexuals will need to make sure they have adequete straight male or straight female role models also, to ensure the children not grow up confused, or unsure of their sexuality. But i’m sure most of them know this anyway!

Saint says:

10:06am | 12/01/10

@ Dave

Can we have a debate without the condescension? I don’t disagree with you at all, if gays shared the same civil rights as everyone else then carrying on as if we didn’t would be very strange. I, for one, would be glad to see Mardi Gras scrapped if current legal discrimination against gays was removed. However, until then, I think it’s a harmless and fun way to draw attention to the fact that we don’t.

And don’t put words in my mouth. I didn’t say democracy is wrong because I don’t like the outcomes of democratic processes. The outcomes are completely wrong if they deny certain segments of society basic rights due to their skin colour, ethnicity, sexuality etc etc etc. Therefore we keep fighting for a better outcome.

@ Margaret Gray

Of course I agree with you that women in the places you mention deserve the rights you spell out, but what on earth does that have to do with this debate? Do I need to list every injustice on the planet simply to debate the current one? Don’t be so childish.

As for your statement about every state and territory ‘legally recognising’ same-sex relationships. Yes, to a point that is true and I have registered my relationship in Victoria. But homosexual couples absoloutely do not enjoy the same full spousal rights as heterosexual couples, even with registered relationships. And why should I have to register my relationship and carry around a piece of paper to prove it to get a watered down version of the legal protections afforded heterosexual couples who simply have to live together for six months?

I’m not suggesting there has not been progress, I’m just letting you know as someone who lives it that in the event of death, illness etc etc, my right to visit, participate in decisions about and inherit from my partner are from guaranteed. Imagine if that was you or your son or daughter. You might not be so smug then and so quick to insist we move on.

It’s quite simple really. If a man and a woman are considered de-facto with all the rights and obligations that come with that after 6 months of living together, then so should two men or two women.

As for marriage, I don’t want to get married. Men and women marry. But, two men or two women must be able to enter a contract (don’t care what you call it) that affords them identical rights and obligations as marriage.

I’d be very interested in sensible arguments as to why this shouldn’t be the case.

Dirk says:

10:11am | 12/01/10

Barb where on earth did you find this ‘mountain of evidence’ that gays can suddely learn to become straight??? So are you saying if you want get access to equal rights you have to turn your back on who your are and become something diffrent? How would you like it if I suggested that if women in the corprate world wanted to get equal pay as thier male counterparts they would have to turn themselves into men if they want it badly enough…. It just dosn’t sound right! Everybody should have access to equal rights and they should not have to change thier gender,religion,skin colour or sexual prefrence in order to get it.

DougB says:

10:15am | 12/01/10

We frequently hear about the “rights” of Gay couples who wish to adopt children, more important are the rights of the child.

A child has a right to a normal, standard of life, living and community acceptance.  I have no doubt that the gay parents would love the child as much as any other couple, but the fact is that that child is going to be subject to the impact of being a child of a gay couple.

That can be cruel at worst, at best it is just different.  While differences are important in society, to most young children, the last thing you need in life is to be different,  you need to be seen as socially acceptable and to live a life that doesn’t draw attention to you unless you want it to.

Gay couples get a choice when they choose to live one another, as far as I know a child up for adoption does not have the choice of whom their parents will be.

WK says:

10:37am | 12/01/10

I find this whole debate outdated beyond belief. I usually don’t like to typecast, but realisitically, the younger generations coming through are MUCH more inclined to support equal rights for gay people. The older generations however - either through upbringing, or their social environment - are often not tolerant.
SO, to my gay friends, I always say, the homophobes will eventually become less & less over the course of time….I realise it’s a frustrating wait, but equal rights are not that far off. Decades from now, people will wonder what the hell the fuss was about.

SLF says:

10:53am | 12/01/10

The thing i find all a bot odd is that people who chose a lifestyle want to have everything that the lifestyle they are turning their back on.

I agree, there should be eauql rights in the law for people regardless of race, religion or sexual orientation, but at some point you have to look at the lifestyle you have, you preferences and simply accept that you must live with the consqeuences of your decisions.

One of which is that in a same sex marriage (no matter what people scream from the rafters) aving children is not natural. Sorry it simply is not. Two men cannot make babies, neither can two women. This is a fact. Therefore thew adoption of a baby, no matter how much love they recieve, from two people fo the same sex is not natural. Sorry it isn’t, not looked at logically.

I am not a homophobe but this issue is not about homophobia, it is about what is natural. I am absolutely for live and let live, but there has to be a line somewhere and people who are different & proud to be different and for people who cannot achieve something to actually realise that they cannot achieve it. FWIW I also disagree with with the idea that having a baby is not a right, it is privaledge that sadly many take too much for granted.

Margaret Gray says:

11:00am | 12/01/10

@Saint

“...why should I have to register my relationship and carry around a piece of paper to prove it ..”

Like a marriage licence?”

“... I’m just letting you know as someone who lives it that in the event of death, illness etc etc, my right to visit, participate in decisions about and inherit from my partner are from guaranteed…”

Rubbish.

Do some research for heaven’s sake.

The law has moved on from the 70’s.

Mandy of West End says:

11:02am | 12/01/10

Im staggered to think in a modern society that this debate is going on. Surely the rights of the child come first. Im sure that gay parent would love thier children and that they would indeed grow up stable people. But the basis of children needing a male and female role model still exists. To say it doesnt so that gay can be equal is boardering on insanity. We are in 2010 now not the 1990s let move on and recognise that the rights of the children come first and the the rights of gays should come second to that

Dirk says:

11:04am | 12/01/10

To SLF, homosexuality is NOT a lifestyle choice. I am gay and ive known that from a young age and I know it wasnt a choice for me, its just apart of who I am and my ‘lifestyle’ is no diffrent than many straight couples. You may keep telling yourself that you are not a homophobe but your comments easily give away that you really have no idea what you are talking about.

Bob H says:

11:07am | 12/01/10

I wouldn’t join a club that didn’t want me as a member. 
Marriage is a celebration of being heterosexual, make up your own ceremony, its the relationship that counts.

Patrick says:

11:15am | 12/01/10

Mandy of West end

“But the basis of children needing a male and female role model still exists. “

Cough, single parents, cough.

DG says:

11:19am | 12/01/10

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights in Article 16 provides that the right to marriage should be available to all adults “without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion”. Are you suggesting that the limitation is one of those expressly prohibited.

Secondly, there is no “right” with respect to adoption at all.

Now there are plenty of instances, endorsed by the community, where people are prevented from attending certain places or behaving in a certain way based on gender and the likes. men entering a “woman’s” bathroom, male only clubs, women only gyms, gay only clubs etc etc. For most of history, and in to the future, discrimination is inevitable. Where two people have rights that can be in conflict there will be discrimination. the most obvious one is the conflict between freedom of [removed]article 19 of the Declaration) and the freedom from attacks upon ones honour (article 12). In practice we resolve this conflict with defamation law.

And this is the prefect precedent. Instead of a list of rights and entitlements how about we look at personal responsibilities?

Anyway, that’s beside the point. My point is this - Why is the state involved in the religious institution of marriage at all? Why not abolish state endorsed marriage and have state endorsed civil unions? There would be no obligation for the State to recognise religious “marriage” - such persons can be taken to be de-facto relations for legal purposes. While there is a state endorsed ‘civil union’ which is the current equivalent of the legal “marriage”? As such any individual can enter into a union with any other consenting adult. Problem solved.

SLF says:

11:19am | 12/01/10

@ DIRK, so if it is not a lifestyle choice and is something inbuilt into you, fair enough I have no issue with this.

However if it is built into people to be different then surely people should embrace the difference and not wish for things that God/Design/Genetics/Environment does not design them to have, such as children.

Margaret Gray says:

11:20am | 12/01/10

Sadly, what it boils down to is this execrable missive by Meares is (another) barely disguised bash at conservatives:

“...(read: I’m a spineless politician who fears the wrath of my uber conservative constituents)...”

“...conservatives are so bloody romantic…”

Yawn.

Has Barack Obama federally sanctioned gay marriage?

Has Kevin Rudd?

In November 2008, the Australian Senate passed a bill that gave same-sex couples equal rights under Commonwealth Law in regards to taxation, social security, health, aged care and employment.

You have no argument.

Move on.

Chase Stevens says:

11:26am | 12/01/10

@SLF - An Appeal to Nature or the Natural is a stupid, flawed and easily dismissed argument. Homosexuality is known to run rampant throughout the ‘natural world’ so it is indeed natural.

Furthermore being Gay is not a choice and there are studies and research papers showing that there are genetic, hormonal and perhaps even environmental reasons for people being Gay.

So long as the Government has legislation called the Marriage Act and recognises both Religious Marriages and Civil Marriages then they must recognise them for couples regardless of their orientation and the sex of the couple. To do anything less is pure discrimination based on no rational reason or strong argument.

Also: Separate but Equal is not Equal, that is a fallacy.

Nevertheless full Gay Rights are only getting closer and closer as ‘Generation Y’ gets older. I look forward to it.

Saint says:

11:26am | 12/01/10

@Margaret Gray

You think I haven’t done the research prior to registering my relationship?

I’ll say it again, we have made great progress, but all same sex couples are asking for is the same rights, afforded in the same way by the same mechanisms. And as someone who is living it that is not how things are right now. If they were, I would be considered the de-facto partner of my partner (excuse double use of the word) after living together for 6 months without having to prove to anyone that I’m in a relationship.

You can snipe as much as you like and split hairs until the cows come home, but you can’t alter the facts. Excluding same sex couples from the definition of de-facto is discrimination based on sexuality. You may think it’s a trifle and not worth bothering about or that we should be satisfied with half-arsed relationship registers and just go away, but if the tables were turned, you might feel differently.

And the sad thing is, all this carry on is so unnecessary as is the creation of relationship registers and paperwork and red tape and screaming about the sanctity of marriage.

Just include same sex couples in the definition of de-facto and let’s all move on.

Chase Stevens says:

11:32am | 12/01/10

@Margaret Gray Kevin Rudd is a Social Conservative that is blatantly obvious, the Labor party has shifted to the right and it wouldn’t surprise me if they were close to being a Left Leaning Centre Right party.

Obama on the other hand has extended rights to the Gay Community but he wouldn’t dare push for Marriage as it is likely to push him out of office in the ultra religious USA.

Plus with the Prop 8 court case on it would be seen as a bad move and would be blown up as an attempt to undermine their judiciary system by the Faux News crowd.

Dirk says:

11:33am | 12/01/10

Sorry SLF but you are shooting down your own argument. If god/ genetics /enviroment designed me than i’m sure it would have designed my sexuality in me aswell. If god or mothetr nature didnt want me to have children then he/she wouldn’t have given me reproduction organs.

Lauren says:

11:39am | 12/01/10

To only allow heterosexual couples to adopt because it is ‘natural’ is a rather daft theory.

Not all children have one mother and one father.

Single parents raise children, whether because one parent took off or because they passed away. This children may have a little struggle no doubt, but it does not deprive them of living a fulfilling life.

Why should the government enforce a law that same sex couples cannot adopt because children need a mother and father, where society reflects that this isn’t bloody Disney-Utopia?

Those raised by single parents should be offended by this idea they were not raised ‘normally’. Should governments intervene and provide the missing mother or father figure? Hell no. So why is this any different to same sex couples adopting?

Interloper says:

11:54am | 12/01/10

I think Astrid made some good points. Absolutely gay couples should have the same rights as heterosexual couples - but that doesn’t mean we can use the word ‘marriage’ to refer to a particular style of heterosexual union. And I also agree with her that the rights of two people to identify as a ‘couple’ for legal purposes shouldn’t be determined by their level of sexual activity.
On the question of adoption, it’s not an entitlement or even a right. It’s about particular situations. What’s in the best interest of the child concerned? All things being equal, it would be to have one loving parent of each gender. Unfortunately, all things are never equal, and the world is not perfect. Lack of gender diversity in parents therefore becomes a negative factor, but certainly not an impediment, to adoption.

Steve says:

11:55am | 12/01/10

@cats
“... homosexuality is a natural occurence [sic] and happens in many different species of animals ... I don’t believe in God, i believe in science and evolution.”

Nature has made lots of evolutionary mistakes. It has even tried the same unsuccessful ideas many times in different species and contexts. However, natural selection has ensured that none of the evolutionary mistakes persist. It looks like homosexuality might turn out to be one of these - common enough, but highly unsuccessful in evolutionary terms.

Blaise says:

12:35pm | 12/01/10

I am sick and tired of people saying the opposition to gay “marriage” is religion-driven. Even the Soviet Union, the ultimate left-wing, atheist country, kept marriage between a man and a woman. So there is nothing necessarily right-wing or christian about opposing gay “marriage”. It is a bad idea purely because it reduces the importance of the most fundamental aspect of a married couple: the creation of new life.

Greg says:

12:41pm | 12/01/10

@ cats   10:58am | 12/01/10
I dont believe in you but you still exist.

It nothing to do with weather there is a God or not or weather you believe in God. the fact remains that the church want to retain the God given right to marry a man and a women. If you want to be gay fine. If you want to join in gay union fine as well. But dont do it in a church or call it marriage. Does gay relationship exist with children of course so does single parents families but it is not good for the children.

Margaret Gray says:

12:57pm | 12/01/10

@Saint

Excluding having the right to conceive (via IVF) or adopt children, please name one Australian Commonwealth and/or State law in which homosexual couples do not share equal rights with defacto or married couples.

Just one will do.

SLF says:

01:12pm | 12/01/10

@Dirk…Err Dirk, you are right, you are designed with sexual organs that allow you to reproduce, unfortunately your partner isn’t in a way that enables you to reproduce with each other.

So think of them like the male nipple, potentially fun, but ultimately useless.

DG says:

01:14pm | 12/01/10

Dirk says:

12:33pm | 12/01/10

” If god/ genetics /enviroment designed me than i’m sure it would have designed my sexuality in me aswell. If god or mother nature didn’t want me to have children then he/she wouldn’t have given me reproduction organs.”.

I don’t think that SLF was suggesting that you should be prohibited from using your sexual organs - just that if you CHOOSE* to use them in a particular manner that can not create children, you have to accept responsibility for that behavioural choice.

The organs to which you refer may well be capable of creating a child if they are used in the manner in which they evolved. Having said that there are plenty of species out there that have “parts” that are not essential for their own life or the reproduction of that life - but they are left over from a previous time when they were useful, or they did not hinder, a species in replicating. Interestingly, homosexuality is a trait that would not ordinarily be passed on genetically ( as the person is unlikely to pass on their genes).

Having said that I agree that adoption is a messy situation. I think the first flaw is thinking it of a right of a person or couple to adopt a child. A more practical solution may be to think of it as the right of a child to have a person (or couple) care for that child.

Having said that I do not think that sexuality should exclude a person or couple from being able to adopt.

*I deliberately draw a distinction between attraction and the choice one has over their own behaviour. I do plenty of things that I don’t like doing, including things that make me feel sick - because I I have the capacity to choose my behaviour regardless about how that behaviour makes me feel on an emotional level (as distinct from an intellectual level). .

DG says:

01:22pm | 12/01/10

Blaise says “It is a bad idea purely because it reduces the importance of the most fundamental aspect of a married couple: the creation of new life.”

Does that men people who do not intend to have children should not be entitled to be married, or persons that are infertile should be prohibited from marriage (since they are incapable of the most fundamental aspect of marriage)?

As far as I am aware there is no basis for the assumption that Marriage has a biological purpose. It is a social construct that is found in most communities, the trigger appears to be one of a social nature rather than biological. I recall reading that almost every one alive to day can be traced back to one of 8 males and a much larger number of females tens of thousands of years ago. Clearly this did not require marriage, simply that males and females have sexual intercourse to create life.

Marriage, and the capacity to have children, are not linked by necessity. Accordingly, the relationship is social.

Mattj says:

01:30pm | 12/01/10

Why so down on Mardi Gras?  I’m sure there wouldn’t be any objection to a blatant display of rampaging hetrosexuality if anyone decided to throw a ‘straight’ Mardi Gras!  So if you’re that upset, nobody is stopping you from starting your own hetrosexual celebration .  You might even enjoy yourself.

Chase Stevens says:

01:49pm | 12/01/10

@Steve says: 12:55pm | 12/01/10 - Evolutionary mistakes still exist and have existed for a long time - example the gene that causes breast cancer will more than likely never be lost due to it not stopping the carrier from reproducing, therefore the carrier may still have children who it passes this gene onto. So long as a gene does not prohibit reproduction (Either by making the carrier sterile or killing the carrier before they are able to reproduce) it will continue to be passed on. The only reason that the breast cancer gene (and indeed the cancer itself) has become so prominent in society today is because people live long enough for it to take effect.

Gene’s can serve multiple purposes for example - the breast cancer gene may not only cause breast cancer but may also make the breast milk more nutritious.  (It probably doesn’t make the milk more nutritious it was just an example).

That is a basic run down of evolution by natural selection.

It has been found that a gene which causes women to be more fertile is active and present in homosexual men but (as far as I remember) not in straight men, or not active in straight men. This alone doesn’t make people gay as far as I understand however.

So yes evolutionary ‘mistakes’ will persist so long as they are able to be passed on and if homosexuality is an evolutionary ‘mistake’ it will likely to persist throughout the life span of the human race.

Saint says:

01:52pm | 12/01/10

@Margaret Gray

Geez Margaret, you really are very aggressive and very rude.

However, here goes: Victoria, New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia, ACT, Northern Territory, Western Australia and Tassie!

In each of these jurisdictions, it is true that the overt discrimination in many pieces of legislation has been removed.

It is also true that in each of these jurisdictions two people of the opposite sex who live together for a pre-determined period of time are considered de-facto along with which comes a whole bunch of legal rights and protections. Two people of the same sex living together for the same period of time, or any period of time, are not considered de-facto and do not get the legal rights and protections.

A partner of a same sex relationship who finds themselves in the position of having to avail themselves of a particular right or protection under law has to prove he or she is in a relationship. Not easy to do and extremely stressful as it is usually in a time of crisis when this happens. Yes, we can register our relationship…. but why should we have to do that…. that is the point!!!!

I don’t intend to respond to any more of your prods on this as you are clearly deliberately missing the point through harping on about semantics when I have tried to point on the reality to you.

Eleanor says:

02:19pm | 12/01/10

Dave C, you’ve clearly never been to Sexpo then, have you?

Anyway, to get back on topic; it shouldn’t matter if the entire state of NSW thinks it’s inappropriate. A same-sex couple should be able to adopt. If we allowed people to have families based on whether or not the rest of the state approved or not, our population would be halved by 2015.

I for one, don’t like the idea dole-bludging, bigoted and poorly educated bogans having children. But I can’t, and won’t take that right away from them.

Andy says:

02:19pm | 12/01/10

To all those against gay marriage and adoption:

You have already lost,  you do realise that, right? Full marraige and adoption rights will be granted to gay couples in this country eventually. It is inevitable. You may be in the majority right now (just) but you won’t be forever… not even for long. Every few months another country comes to it’s senses and grants these rights to everyone. Do you really think that trend will stop?

I’m sure as this becomes more obvious many will start complaining the “world is going to hell” or some other such nonsense - but it isn’t and it won’t.

Everything will be fine. The children of same sex parents will be fine. The sanctity of your marriage (even your second or third) will be fine.

Go on, give us a referendum then. says:

02:36pm | 12/01/10

@Astrid.  I am married, but we did not get married in a church or in any religious ritual.  So, why do church goers own the term “married” if straight non-churchgoers can get hitched, but gay people - churchgoers or not - can’t?

My position on this gay adoption debate is this: Australian churches (and thus our governments) somehow believe it’s better for any 15 year old straight couple to have kids, get the baby bonus, move into public housing and go on the dole than it is for educated, employed, responsible gay people to adopt. The logic astounds me.

I’m with @Andy - it will happen sooner rather than later and all the nay-sayers will remain where they choose to be - in the dark.

Andrew Goff says:

02:43pm | 12/01/10

I’m curious. Can one person here give me one reason why a Gay Couple is any different from a straight couple that can’t have kids? Are you suggesting banning adoption, or are you discriminating against Gay and Lesbian people?

The only sane reason to discriminate against this minority is religion. In Australia, that is simply not good enough.

Margaret Gray says:

02:51pm | 12/01/10

@Saint

Thanks for proving my point.

Under Australian Commonwealth and State law homosexual couples have exactly the same rights as heterosexual couples.

That makes this article and your poor attempts to justify it a complete waste of time.

“...Yes, we can register our relationship…. but why should we have to do that…. that is the point!!!!...”

I had to register my marriage.

I had to register my children.

So what…get over yourself.

The Original AJ says:

03:10pm | 12/01/10

There’s a very pertinent argument by a well-known conservative republican lawyer (Ted Olson, of Bush v Gore fame, running the anti-Prop 8 case) in FAVOUR of gay marriage.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/229957

That said, I have some additional comments.

Whilst there is considerable resistance from certain religious groups to permitting gay marriage, it should be pointed out that preventing same-sex marriage discriminates against those religions, including Christian sects, that permit it.  Without compelling reason to deny legitimacy to these religions, this is rather concerning in a state that is, by and large, quite secular.  Whilst we don’t explicitly have freedom of religion as a legal right, it’s a reasonably broadly accepted tenet.

To the bloke who mentioned above that ‘two sperm or two eggs will never make a baby’, well, I hate to mention it, mate, but scientists are capable of fertilising an egg using DNA from another women.  We’re still a fair way off having 2 sperm create a baby, but it’s not out of the realm of possibility.

Margaret Gray, simply saying someone doesn’t have an argument doesn’t make it true.  Whilst it may be accurate that same-sex relationships are recognised (to differing degrees) by each State and Territory, there are still areas in which they are treated differently, adoption being perhaps the most prominent.  Furthermore, the specific argument around marriage is that, whilst the rights granted by recognition are important, many same-sex couples consider the process by which they obtain those rights, and the title granted by the state in recognition of their relationship, as a particularly important symbolic element.

I’ll close with this observation:  To those who say homosexuality is a choice, I would ask, why on earth would someone CHOOSE to be part of a demographic that is routinely discriminated against?

cats says:

03:10pm | 12/01/10

@Blaise
Right, so are you gonna rave onto heterosexual couples who don’t have kids that they shouldn’t be married either? The Soviet Union was racist and sexist full stop. Is it just a coincidence that the majority of people nowdays who are opposed to same sex relationships are religious? Me thinks not.

@Steve
So, what exactly is your point? That because *you* think homosexuality is an evolutionary mistake, that homosexuals should not be able to raise children?

Greg says:01:41pm | 12/01/10
@ cats   10:58am | 12/01/10
I dont believe in you but you still exist.

Seriously, why do you feel the need to personally attack me?

Anyone who is argueing on behalf of children’s welfare is trying to front for their own homophobia. Since when have any of you cared about other people’s kids?

I’ll give you a few examples:
Internet filtering. Most of you don’t want it and think that parents should monitor their own children, and that no one else should be looking out for other people’s children.
R18+ video games. Again, most of you think that parents should look out for what their own kids are playing.
Single parenting. I have not read anyone say that single parenting is a bad idea.

So when did everyone start “caring” about other people’s children? Attitudes that i see on this site, news corp and others suggest that people do not look out or care for other people’s kids. Please don’t use this arguement anymore, because its a lie. I want to see a real arguement. And don’t use the one about marriage only being between a man and a woman, because as we all know meanings of words can change over time, and laws can change.

Eleanor says:

03:11pm | 12/01/10

Um, Margaret. Pretty sure the ENTIRE article above just stated that they don’t have the same rights, as there is not “broad enough community support to justify new state legislation at this time,” - NSW Community Services Minister Linda Burney.

Wanna know what else same-sex couples don’t have access to? How’s about surrogacy, the right to vote by proxy, and to register a spouse’s death. You’re the one who needs to get over yourself, or more importantly, do your research before making incredibly bigoted and ill-informed comments.

Saint says:

03:21pm | 12/01/10

@Margaret Gray

I know I said I was done with you, but I have to try and spell this out again.

You = heterosexual. You can a) get married (yes you have to have a licence) or b) live with someone and be deemed de-facto after 6 or 12 months (can’t remember which).

Me = homosexual. I cannot a) get married or b) be deemed to be de-facto after 6 or 12 months (can’t remember which). Instead I have to prove I’m in a relationship to get access to lesser rights and protections than afforded by marriage or de-facto status and my status can be challenged.

Therefore, while much of the overt discrimination in many other pieces of legislation has been removed (which is great), heterosexual and homosexual couples do not have exactly the same rights, or protections under law.

To keep claiming otherwise just makes you look silly.

And I still can’t understand the overt aggression in all your posts. There doesn’t seem to be any need for it. What I’m asking for doesn’t affect you in any way, shape or form so why this vehement objection?

DG says:

03:30pm | 12/01/10

Andrew Goff (03:43pm | 12/01/10)

I can think of several reasons. The primary, and most obvious one is that both a male and female are required to create a baby. That’s pretty much the first essential component. If you don’t have those two components a baby is impossible.

From there it comes down to the health of that male and that female - including any genetic complications or previous illness or disease or other biological abnormality.

Now you are comparing a person that has an organ which is not functioning, defective, missing or otherwise abnormal with a couple that do not have, and are not genetically predisposed to having, the requisite organs.

Even simpler - a man and a woman who have sex would, ordinarily, expect to be able to create a child. Any homosexual person that believes that have sex with a person of the same gender is likely to create a child should have someone sit down and explain the birds and the bees.

A person who chooses to enter a relationship with a person knowing that they will be incapable of having a child together, choose to be in a childless relationship. Whether it be the same sex, or some trauma or illness that prevents a person from impregnating or being impregnated, other than instances where the couple involved could not, reasonably, be expected to know that they were incapable of having a child together.

Having said that - as above, I don’t really care who adopts children. I do oppose the idea that people have a right to adopt children, I would suggest instead that children should have the right to be adopted if someone wants to adopt them. I just intended to highlight the distinction as you requested.

Chase Stevens says:

03:47pm | 12/01/10

Marriage is a human right as defined by Article 16 of the UDHR as is the right to have a family (Same article), that stated is it fair, just or right to deprive anybody of those rights?

Margaret Gray says:

04:22pm | 12/01/10

@Saint

As I asked of you earlier and you failed to answer, the fact remains you cannot provide a single example where you - as a homosexual - are legally “discriminated” against under Commonwealth or any State law.

Your argument therefore is specious.

“... I cannot a) get married or b) be deemed to be de-facto after 6 or 12 months. Instead I have to prove I’m in a relationship to get access to lesser rights and protections than afforded by marriage or de-facto status and my status can be challenged.

What are these “rights and protections” you are being denied?

Neither you or Meares have provided any proof beyond sweeping conjecture (and false) generalisations.  Be specific.

Sadly, you seem hung-up on being recognised as “married” or “de-facto”.

The truth is those labels and the legal connotations of them are redundant under the law and in Victoria would be a violation of your human rights.

Why are labels so important to you?

SamD says:

04:26pm | 12/01/10

@ DougB

“Gay couples get a choice when they choose to live one another, as far as I know a child up for adoption does not have the choice of whom their parents will be. “

LOL, I don’t think any child gets the choice of whom their parents will be. 

“A child has a right to a normal, standard of life, living and community acceptance.”

A child has a right to a “normal’ life.  Really?  What constitutes normal exactly? 

“...you need to be seen as socially acceptable and to live a life that doesn’t draw attention to you unless you want it to.”

My parents are a bit eccentric. Caused me quite a bit of embarrassment when I was a child of school age.  If I follow your line of thinking, it would seem I should have been taken from their care and placed into a more conformist environment.

There’s plenty of hetero parents out there who keep popping out kids and not taking particularly good care of them.  If a gay couple would make better parents, why would you deny any child that opportunity?

Darryl Price says:

04:38pm | 12/01/10

Chase@ 4:47 - Indeed it is defined by article 16 of the UDHR. Somewhat conveniently, you have overlooked the following “Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion…”. No mention there of sexuality or sexual persuasion, and I’m sure none intended given the declaration dates back to 1948. For mine, the intention of the UDHR on marriage is clear, and marriage remains our ( the boring, centre right majority) word. Keep chipping away in vain hope, and I look forward to the this aspect of the UDHR being accused of discrimination.

Greg says:

04:45pm | 12/01/10

@ cats

I apologize it wasnt meant to be a personal attack upon you.

your reasoning is that because you dont believe in God he doesnt exist. hence my comment. Obviously not made very well.

Lots of thing happen in nature that humans dont do so using the point that homosexuality exists in nature is quite silly and you have not thought about what you have written. We are not animals in case you didnt notice. But I do agree with you we over. Internet filtering. R18+ video games. and single parenting isnt the best for a child but it happens.  But you are better off as a child of a single parent than of a gay couple. What sort of mixed up person you would be.  But if the gay community wants to adopt and have children the government should also allow for friends to adopt a child, maybe 2 sisters or 2 brothers surely they can provide the nuture and support that any couple can give.

ab says:

04:51pm | 12/01/10

History is even less rarely made in the courts. Like in other countries, this debate is not going to be solved by a Parliament stuffed with conservatives but by our courts. As the law that defines marriage as only one man and one woman is based on religious doctrine, it can’t hold up on constitutional merit.

Jay says:

05:00pm | 12/01/10

Hmmm - funny - all my gay friends were brought up in heterosexual families… maybe we should have a closer look at the possibility that having straight parents ‘makes’ you gay?

See - that logic is a silly as the Mrs Lovejoys getting hysterical about kids growing up in homosexual families.

Gay people are human beings first and foremost - how about other people recognise that, and allow them the rights and protections the rest of society enjoy.

No children or fluffy bunnies will suffer as a result.

Steve says:

05:02pm | 12/01/10

@Chase Stevens
“... the gene that causes breast cancer will more than likely never be lost due to it not stopping the carrier from reproducing ...”

No, it only needs some carriers to die before reproducing, and enough generations, for the gene to be bred out, all other things being equal.

Similarly, if homosexuality is genetic, then given that it inhibits reproduction, it should disappear rather quickly. However, it has been around for thousands of years, which suggests to me that it is actually environmental, rather than genetic after all.

tc says:

07:36pm | 12/01/10

Joel, get off your soap box mate and produce a balanced discussion instead of a tantrum. The justification in this article is so flawed its silly. Nor is the NSW govt decision “ridiculous” as you say.

The issue of race rights is not connected to the issue of gay rights in any way, shape or form. Let the gays bring up that argument and see how it goes down.

The notion that the majority is not always right does not equate to the minority being right.

Having a “conservative” view on this does not make you a homophobe and any assertion is actually proposing a violation of free speech. We are all entitled to our opinions and have the right to voice them. Personally Im with Dave C and think Mardi Gras is a distasteful display with sinister objectives.

I have nothing against gays but Im not in favour of giving you children. You can have the right to have children but that doesnt mean the you can adopt our most vulnerable. You can also have the right to have a large an expensive car but that doesnt mean youre going to get one.

The point that homosexuality exists elsewhere in nature only indicates that gays can exist, it doesn’t bestow gay people with the sudden right to adopt.

It does seem silly that single gays can adopt though when gay coupes cannot so I suggest that law should be amended so they cannot.

DG says:

09:35pm | 12/01/10

The Original AJ (04:10pm | 12/01/10) :

“I would ask, why on earth would someone CHOOSE to be part of a demographic that is routinely discriminated against? “

For the same reason that people choose to be Jewish (the religion) or Muslim, for the same reason that people, like myself, out themselves as Aboriginal when no one would know if I didn’t advertise it. For the same reason that we have emo kids and muppets with Southern Cross tattoos. People tend to stand up for what they feel.

Sure there are some people that choose to hide from the truth if it will make their life a bit easier and that’s fair enough - it’s their life after all. But many people choose to be honest and open about themselves and the things that they feel and that they believe in.

That’s not to say that being gay is a choice. Behaviour is a choice, feelings (generally) are not.

Chase Stevens says:

10:15pm | 12/01/10

@Steve - Er yes the carriers can die which will stop the gene being passed on. Should’ve said that.

Also believe I said that a genetic link has been found. One that causes women to be more fertile and when active in men may give them a predisposition to be gay.

Personally I believe that it’s more than likely a combination of genetics, hormones (Present in the womb) and environmental.

Interesting Stat: The more sons a mother has the more likely they will be gay.

Mike says:

10:57pm | 12/01/10

I’m a young gay male. I understand many of the opposing points made above. I must say that I agree with a few of the other bloggers in this case- Australia will (not now, but one day) legalise gay ‘marriage’. Whether or not it’s called that or called a civil union or something similar, it will happen. As the (dare I say) older generations pass on things will change. I’m in no rush. I can wait for my grandmother and cohort to leave us.

James says:

09:51am | 13/01/10

Hi Margaret,

If labels are so unimportant, why not allow gay couples to have officially sanctioned access to the word “marriage”?  Does it hurt you personally?  I can not understand your bitterness and vitriol at all.  You present yourself as disinterested, and yet seem to hold very strong views.

Ella says:

02:23pm | 13/01/10

Steve, evolutionarily speaking it is not the case that genes die out just because active carriers of the gene are not reproducing. Genes may be continued if non reproducing people support siblings or others in the community with childrearing.
       
This is because genes don’t have to be active to be passed on just carried ie my nephew has red hair. Neither of his parents do but great grandparents in both families had red hair. Now my nephew might choose never to have kids of his own, but he could encourage the spread of the red headed gene by encouraging his brother and sister to have more children.

It is possible that many of us carry an unmanifested gay gene just waiting to be passed on.

Charles Kelly says:

01:36am | 14/01/10

Many older people object to gay marriage on historically perceived moral or religious “traditional union” grounds - but in modern civilised society, these factors in my opinion are far less relevant than they used to be. Presumably everyone here who supports breaking the outdated shackles of traditional marriage also believes that polygamy should be acceptable in modern society, right?

If we are to accept some non-traditional forms of marriage and child rearing, it would be hypocritical not to accept polygamy as well.

Dj says:

01:48am | 14/01/10

Gee you homosexuals complain so often that the word “gay” is hardly a descriptive moniker. Perhaps you should consider changing it to something more appropriate.

Youngster says:

09:38am | 14/01/10

Kids need a mother and a father. If you can’t figure that out you’re not that bright. It’s sad enough that we have so many kids growing up with single parents - that is not fair on the single parent or the kids. Why would we legislate to allow kids to be brought up with two dads or two mums?

cats says:

09:46am | 14/01/10

Greg, you said that you agree with me that people really don’t care about other people’s children, but then you said that gay people should not have children because they will be messed up? I’m confused.

Single parenting is NOT better than two gay parents. There is absolutely no way that watching your parent struggling to support you and your siblings by being on welfare and trying to pay for your schooling and social life. Please give me a reason why that is better than two gay parents who, at least one works full-time, they can pay for your schooling without struggling, and then they incorporate straight role models in your life and explain to you that they are not like most people. Kids will see straight couples EVERYWHERE. There is no way they are going to be “messed up”.

Look, if you’re logic was in place in every family, then why are their gay people who come from straight parents?!

Dj says:

12:38pm | 14/01/10

Adoption by gay couples would not be fair to the children.
There is just no way that they would be growing up in a natural environment.
If we as a society allows this, we have reached a new low as regards our responsibility towards defenseless children.
A gay lifestyle may be tolerated by society and even accepted among some, but it will never be deemed to be normal.
Should a person decide that they are gay in their teens, so be it - but to subject impressionable pre-teens to an abnormal lifestyle is unacceptable any way you care to look at it.

Eleanor says:

01:57pm | 14/01/10

Dj says:01:38pm | 14/01/10

Adoption by gay couples would not be fair to the children.
There is just no way that they would be growing up in a natural environment

I’m curious DJ, do you also eat your meat raw and sleep in a tree?

Dj says:

04:39pm | 14/01/10

Yes.
I am the older generation who also has an opinion that is just as valid as yours.
Being called a redneck, homophobic, sexist, racist, bigoted and a climate change skeptic is like water off a ducks back.
Why must one keep quiet if you do not agree?
Debate is discussion without anger or personal attack.
Oh and by the way, do you gain sustenance from low fat yogurt & carrot sticks and attend folk festivals?

ms walters says:

06:03am | 08/12/11

I have Friends That are same sex couple and have raised children from adoption there is no proof that the children will be gay or lesbian or even transgender if they are raised by same sex couple get with the time i’m am a lesbian been with my partner 7 years it better for the children to have a loving home then a home where it not safe for them at least the children have parents that care for them   and love them the so called marriage please tell me where in the bible does it say marriage is between man and women and who created the bible first all god gave us is ten commandments to follow by we humans created the bible from the ten commandments I’m a Christan too and i support same sex marriage and adoption wake up people it the 21st century not the 16th century I go to church and my church accept me for who I’m regardless of sex orientation

Robert Bain says:

02:21pm | 22/03/12

Charlie was a very determined and energetic young man who went swimming with several friends. Warning calls of others more familiar to the local conditions went unheeded. Charlie dived off the projecting rock into the ocean. Later they dragged Charlie’s shattered body from the shallow water. This tragedy had devastating effect upon his wife, child, brothers and parents.

Today the cry is to accept Gay Marriage. The question I present have we examined the subject carefully?  Do our politicians really care about the future or simply to please the gays or the majority?  There is a saying “The blind lead the blind and we all fall in a ditch!”
“Changing the legal definition of marriage would be a profoundly radical step that would have far reaching consequences to future generations of Australians.
Same sex marriage would deliberately and ignorantly deprive children of the right to a mother or father. There are most obvious differences between males and females that relate to reproductive role,
Let us not forget how profoundly men and women differ from each other. Male and female brains are dramatically different anatomically, chemically, hormonally, and physiologically. Those differences cause fundamentally different ways of thinking, feeling, and behaving.
Understand the differences in how men and women communicate. While men’s conversations tend to focus on facts, women’s conversations tend to emphasize the feelings behind the facts. Men solve problems best by thinking about one issue at a time. Women generally need to talk through problems and process their thoughts. Men approach situations with a strong desire to make decisions and take action.  Women sometimes just want to talk about how they feel about those same situations. Men tend to speak directly and use words literally, while women tend to speak indirectly.  Both systems male and female contribute to the future of our children.
Men are wired to provide financially for their families, “Yes some fail in this department” On the other hand women are wired to provide the emotional security of the home. “Yes some do fall short in this area” However, generally a much more peaceful and balanced life is projected to the children where male and female contribute.  Husbands and wives need emotional security and our children need to sense that true love between a male and female marriage is evident in the home.
Finally let us recognize that it was God who designed men and women to be different.  This was his plan and purpose for life. Let us get on with is and provide a good future for the next generation of Australians. We have a duty to married people today, and to those who come after us, to do all we can to ensure that the true meaning of marriage is not lost for future generations.
Please don’t be a Charlie listen to good advice, Say NO to gay marriage!