Liberal MPs favouring “marriage equality” undermine their government

Views on gay marriage have changed markedly.  Doubtless reflecting common perceptions, homosexual relationships were considered an abomination in the Old and New Testaments and in the Koran.  Homosexual practices have remained forbidden in most Muslim countries (punishable by death in extreme cases) but in western societies over the past 50 years they became first tolerated then legal.

Even so, many people, and probably most parents, would empathise with Mrs Seinfeld who, on hearing (inaccurate) news that her son was gay, expressed concern but adding “not that there’s anything wrong with it”.  And homosexuality remained until recently the butt of many wisecracks.  In the 1970s one joke had a commentator ten years hence announcing the news that homosexuality has been legalised in Queensland and another responding that it had just been made mandatory in South Australia.

Doubtless the current activists are being honest in claiming they only want equality and would not force those with religious convictions to fully suppress these if they were in conflict.  But the same limited aims were made by those that sought de jure legality.  And while it is unlikely the Gay Rights movement would prevail over Islamic preferences, any remaining Christians and Jews sticking to Biblical injunctions would be easily overcome.

In this respect, nothing is more certain than that, following a Marriage Equality Act, future demands will be made on the wedding cake manufacturers and wedding celebrants to, on pain of legal action, also supply gay couples.  And this goes back to the passionate desire for gay people to be regarded in every respect as equally normal to straight people.

One of the many institutional promoters of the gay rights cause is a captured educational establishment with, for example, the Safe Schools program encouraging more children to adopt what its gay-friendly promoters consider their latent homosexual leanings, thereby expanding the size of the minority.  This renders, as a wry sardonic comment, the previously mentioned 1980s joke about South Australia in future requiring homosexual practices to be mandatory.

People may or may not register as being in favour of marriage equality but the public does not rate it as an issue.  Opinion Polls notwithstanding, given Australia’s federal nature a plebiscite, and the tendency of many to hide their real views on trendy social issues means a conclusive “yes” vote is not assured.  Many Liberal politicians campaigning for a Parliamentary vote recognise this, recognise the relative unimportance of the issue to their constituents and recognise the divisive nature of their campaign.  Their persistence in pursuing the cause is little short of astonishing.

See the full post at Quadrant

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

79 Responses to Liberal MPs favouring “marriage equality” undermine their government

  1. Senile Old Guy

    Excellent post (but I would say that, having made several of these arguments over the last few days).

    The reasons I am going on about this “lower order issue” are that: (a) the ABC is, again, being hopelessly partisan, backing a change which many Australians do not favour; (b) Tim Wilson, and fellow campaigners, are going against the clearly stated policy of the Liberal Party; (c) MPs threatening to vote with the ALP is an utterly terrible act; (d) this is a major social issue which should not be decided by and handful of trendy, progressive politicians; and (e) the public was promised a plebiscite by the LNP, an action which Wilson voted for.

  2. Pyrmonter

    Absolutely. We must never grant a freedom, you can never be sure to what tyranny it will lead.

  3. struth

    I would agree that it is not a major issue to Australians.
    Not until the Marxists wedge of it with more attacks against the family.
    The words father and mother will be replaced by Parent one, parent two, and safe schools will have a field day.
    This is a well known tactic that the left told us they were going to do.
    The Alinskyists are having a field day.

    from about 8.40.
    We were told many years ago.

  4. Razor

    Just remembered:
    watching ABC with grandchild around 8 Years ago had Not Father Bear but big bear, not mother bear but middle size bear and not baby bear but little bear. This madness really started some time ago and has snuck in to now normalise homosexuality in the school system from prep up.

  5. JohnA

    Doubtless the current activists are being honest in claiming they only want equality and would not force those with religious convictions to fully suppress these if they were in conflict.

    Bull! The activists (as opposed to actual homosexual people, which includes a number I know personally) have ALWAYS pursued the slippery slope approach to getting more and more of what they want, which is to destroy the Christian church and thus eliminate all moral blockages to total acceptance and endorsement of their lifestyle. (However, they don’t have a clue about Islam.)

    That is why the leftists have been so vociferous against defenders of marriage who employ the slippery slope argument – it is the main strategy for advancing leftist/progressive (ha!) causes. Thus they must disarm their opponents somehow – a task simplified by the helpful fifth column of useful idiots within the liberal churches.

    Whether you call it the “camel’s nose in the tent” or the “frog in the pot” approach, let us be under no illusions that gay activists will stop once this particular piece of legislation passes (if it does).

  6. David Brewer

    Why is Tim Wilson undermining the validity of same-sex marriage in advance by refusing to have it emerge from a national vote?

    I really don’t get it. Does anyone doubt that a plebiscite would be carried? The polls are 3 to 1 in favour and it even got through in Ireland, FFS.

    Ramming it through Parliament is a perfect way of delegitimising the change, especially for Senile Old Guy’s reasons (d) and (e).

    Also, the gay lobby’s problem was never the majority of the population, but the minority who for religious or other reasons don’t go along with gay marriage and/or ahhor homosexuality itself. A plebiscite would marginalise those people, whereas a parliamentary vote will encourage them to persist in their rejection.

  7. Seco

    This won’t stop until a lesbian Catholic priest can marry LGBQWERTY people of any amount in a Catholic church.

  8. cui bono

    Their persistence in pursuing the cause is little short of astonishing.
    Not really. They know a genuine plebiscite will reveal majority approval for the status quo.
    They are going for broke because they want to be the fathers of change.

  9. Felix Kruell

    People may or may not register as being in favour of marriage equality but the public does not rate it as an issue.

    Neither do they rate 18C as an issue. Doesn’t mean amending it isn’t the right thing to do.

    The easiest way to make this issue go away is to pass it. We don’t even need to worry about the wedding cake maker, that discrimination is already outlawed here.

  10. IDefender of the faith

    Alan I scared of being taken over by people who aren’t normal. His words. Sad.

  11. Roger

    Doubtless reflecting common perceptions, homosexual relationships were considered an abomination in the Old and New Testaments …

    Common perceptions based on divine revelation and also backed up by natural law.

    In the eminently quotable words of Cardinal Pell, God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.

    Doubtless the current activists are being honest in claiming they only want equality and would not force those with religious convictions to fully suppress these if they were in conflict.

    Don’t be so naive, Alan; the goal of social revolutionaries is always theological, or I should say anti-theological.

  12. struth

    The easiest way to make this issue go away is to pass it.

    Ho ho.

  13. stackja

    Pressure builds for free vote on same-sex marriage
    ROB HARRIS, National politics reporter, Herald Sun
    38 minutes ago
    Subscriber only
    A FREE vote on same-sex marriage could be held in federal parliament by Christmas under a compromise to deal with the issue ahead of a potentially heated Liberal party room debate next week.

    The Herald Sun understands pro-gay marriage advocates within the Liberals could reluctantly support the Turnbull Government’s policy of a public vote on the issue — run by postal vote — if it was tied to a commitment of a free vote following the process.

    Senior members of the Coalition — including Immigration Minister Peter Dutton — have pushed for a postal vote on the issue after Labor, the Greens and key crossbenchers blocked plans for a plebiscite last year.

    It is understood the non-compulsory postal vote would cost around $40 million — $120 million less than budgeted for a plebiscite which would have been held last February if it had gained support.

    Critically no taxpayer-funded money would be given to run a “Yes” or “No” campaign.

    The government would not need support of parliament to run a postal vote.

    But with the postal vote’s result open to a potential legal challenge, it is understood a free vote for all parliamentarians — as early as November — could follow the process.

    Conservative MPs maintain the government must stick to its election promise of giving all Australians the chance to have their say but senior government sources say the postal plebiscite would honour that commitment.

  14. candy

    Warren Entsch expressed what I thought is very significant – the gay community want marriage and to “have children” like normal people. Now, these will be procured children who will never know their biological background, eg, who they look like, if they have a serious medical condition inherited. A huge blank. They will never have a mum and dad.It’s all wrong, but it’s bound to happen and we will have a generation of dysfunction “stolen” children.

    At least there are some conservative politicians who consider the basic human rights of children – to know their parents and be raised by mum and dad.
    So the marriage thing is not so important – but it will bring about trashing of the lives of children.

  15. Dr Faustus

    The entry price to the Winner’s Circle is SOG’s points b) to e).

    Pyne, the parliamentary pooves, and anybody else supporting this brilliant approach to running a deeply unpopular, ineffective, near minority government is marked as unfit for purpose.
    They need to be machine-gunned in the life-boats when the SS Liberal Party sinks with all hands.

  16. Felix Kruell

    So the marriage thing is not so important – but it will bring about trashing of the lives of children.

    Gay people are already having children. Sometimes by adoption, sometimes by surrogacy. So you’re a little late with the whole “why won’t anyone think of the children?!” Whether we pass same sex marriage or not won’t change this simple fact.

  17. Infidel Tiger

    Gay people are already having children. Sometimes by adoption, sometimes by surrogacy.

    A societal evil we must also address.

  18. Haidee

    “…. thereby expanding the size of the minority …”
    They’ve always been recruiters.

    “… Doubtless the current activists are being honest … would not force those with religious convictions to fully suppress these, if they were in conflict”
    That’s very trusting.
    Among the ranks of the activists are some of the most spiteful, vindictive individuals on the planet.

  19. Felix Kruell

    A societal evil we must also address.

    Or an expression of love. Depends on how miserable your outlook.

  20. Helen

    Gay men may have children by adoption or surrogacy, but gay women can, and many already do, have them the usual way.
    A societal evil? So should the state remove the children of gay parents, even if they are the biological children (by birth or surrogacy)? Just like we used to do with mixed race children? That didn’t work very well.

  21. Mark A

    Helen
    #2459472, posted on August 5, 2017 at 1:15 am
    Just like we used to do with mixed race children? That didn’t work very well.

    Prove it happened for that reason alone!

  22. Pyrometer:

    Absolutely. We must never grant a freedom, you can never be sure to what tyranny it will lead.

    They are not being denied any freedom at all. If I am a man and I demand that people recognize me as a woman their refusal to do so is not a denial of freedom. The same applies to marriage.

    Felix K:

    Gay people are already having children. Sometimes by adoption, sometimes by surrogacy. So you’re a little late with the whole “why won’t anyone think of the children?!” Whether we pass same sex marriage or not won’t change this simple fact.

    Gay people are not ‘having’ children. When you procure a child from another person, whether by adoption or surrogacy, you are not ‘having’ children at all, you are procuring a child. And, of course, since this does depend upon adoption and surrogacy laws that were only recently though surreptitiously amended, they could be easily and rightfully be reversed.

    Or an expression of love. Depends on how miserable your outlook.

    It’s not an ‘expression of love’ when you procure a child through surrogacy. Homosexuals really need to stop appropriating expressions that are misleading when applied to their own relations.

    Helen:

    A societal evil? So should the state remove the children of gay parents, even if they are the biological children (by birth or surrogacy)? Just like we used to do with mixed race children? That didn’t work very well.

    Your analogy doesn’t work. It would be like removing aboriginal children from their adopted families and returning them to their biological parents where possible. Doesn’t sound so bad when rightly stated. Surrogacy certainly is a social evil. Children have a right to be raised by both biological parents. Regarding adoption, where it is not possible for either or both biological parents to raise their child, the child should be placed in the most idle available circumstance, which is with a married couple properly speaking.

  23. Megan

    Or an expression of love

    Perhaps you can explain to me how depriving a child of the complete knowledge of their human, medical and cultural history is an expression of love?

    There is plenty of active opposition from the now adult children of gay families to demonstrate your statement as totally inaccurate for many of them.

  24. struth

    Felix, with the attack on our society by Marxists using your selfishness as a tool to bring down western civilization, would it be possible for gays to think of the next generations even though you have no skin in the game?
    You may now live exactly like married couples.
    No one is stopping you.
    This leads to the corruption on the emphasis of the family by allowing safe schools and the like to dismiss the concept of mum and dad officially.
    They are trying it on now even without the insanity which is marriage of the same sex being made official.
    Can you look up the Frankfurt school, Alinsky and how cultural Marxism is attacking us.
    The useful idiots will be the first to be lined up and shot.
    So muslims or Marxists, your smartest bet would be to revel in the freedoms you now have in the most gay tolerant society on earth at the moment.
    Take a trip to Russia or the middle east and see what your agitation gets you.

  25. Senile Old Guy

    Whether you call it the “camel’s nose in the tent” or the “frog in the pot” approach, let us be under no illusions that gay activists will stop once this particular piece of legislation passes (if it does).

    Exactly. One of the reasons I am opposed is that if this is passed, there will be other demands to follow.

    The easiest way to make this issue go away is to pass it. We don’t even need to worry about the wedding cake maker, that discrimination is already outlawed here.

    Yes, “pass it” is an argument that is being made but that will not make this issue go away: it will simply encourage the gay lobby to make more demands.

    So the marriage thing is not so important – but it will bring about trashing of the lives of children.

    The “marriage thing” is important because it is about a small (about 1%) special interest group trying to redefine an tradition because they cannot take part in it. It is a vocal, vicious, left wing, progressive special interest group which is only concerned for itself. And, yes, it will trash the lives of children.

    There is plenty of active opposition from the now adult children of gay families to demonstrate your statement as totally inaccurate for many of them.

    Some of the best arguments against gay marriage have been made by children from gay families.

  26. Alan Moran

    Grace Collier this morning
    “Same-sex couples want legal recognition of their relationship and equality of treatment by the state. But mainly, surely, they desire the broad social acceptance that will follow. They want to be in the lovely married people club.” Opponents fear that this devalues the word “marriage”

  27. candy

    Or an expression of love. Depends on how miserable your outlook

    I don’t know about “love” there, Felix. In Brisbane I hear tell of a chap on gum tree for a price who brings around his sperm to lesbians who want to have a baby and they try themselves. For whatever reason they want to go anonymously / illegally.

    Felix, it’s far from ideal to bring a life into the world via a desperate person on gumtree who possibly as Hep B, AIDS or anything.

  28. Roger

    Opponents fear that this devalues the word “marriage”

    No; rather, it subverts the very thing.

  29. A Lurker

    The “marriage thing” is important because it is about a small (about 1%) special interest group trying to redefine an tradition because they cannot take part in it. It is a vocal, vicious, left wing, progressive special interest group which is only concerned for itself. And, yes, it will trash the lives of children.

    +100000000000000

    What it comes down to is utter selfishness, total narcissism. The getting of what they want by any and all means necessary – even if it means trashing the lives of innocent children now and into the future. Even if it means allowing Marxists to trash Western civilization. Even if it means allowing our freedoms to be further compromised.

    Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!!! I wantSSM!I wantSSM!I wantSSM!I wantSSM!I wantSSM!I wantSSM!I wantSSM!I wantSSM!I wantSSM!I wantSSM!I wantSSM!I wantSSM!I wantSSM!I wantSSM!I wantSSM!

    Lord, give me strength…

  30. Senile Old Guy

    “Same-sex couples want legal recognition of their relationship and equality of treatment by the state. But mainly, surely, they desire the broad social acceptance that will follow. They want to be in the lovely married people club.” Opponents fear that this devalues the word “marriage”.

    Until, perhaps, very recently, most people getting married did so with the understanding and expectation that they would have children and raise a family (yes, some may not have been able to do so but pursued adoption, IVF and other avenues), although some did not. For gays, “having a family” is not an option, without outside assistance. So “traditional marriage” and “gay marriage” have, from the start, very different expected outcomes. Now, “gay marriage” is supposed to be about “love”. But it is “love” for each other. On the other hand, “traditional marriage” was about “love” for each other but also about children and love for those children, and caring and raising and educating and nurturing. Marriages can fail but the couple can stay together, and work together, for the children. I think the “broad social acceptance” comes, partly, because people who are raising children are securing the future and contributing to the next generation. Raising good people in the next generation is a common good.

  31. Haidee

    “. . . mainly they desire the broad, social acceptance that will follow”
    They do.
    Same-sex couple up here recently refused enrolment for their child in Catholic school; parish priest (from the sub-continent) kindly but firmly explained why. Opinion on this decision was divided, of course. But parents are required to demonstrate, in various ways, commitment to the Catholic faith. Children of lesbian couples can suffer consequences.

  32. “Same-sex couples want legal recognition of their relationship and equality of treatment by the state. But mainly, surely, they desire the broad social acceptance that will follow. They want to be in the lovely married people club.”

    Legal recognition is already available. However, two different types of relationship do not require equal treatment. Social acceptance is already forthcoming, which explains the legal recognition. If they want to be in the ‘married people club’, they should have married someone of the opposite sex.

  33. Ivan Denisovich

    Whether you call it the “camel’s nose in the tent” or the “frog in the pot” approach, let us be under no illusions that gay activists will stop once this particular piece of legislation passes (if it does).

    Fair call and supported by evidence going back many years:

    Michelangelo Signorile, writing in Out! magazine, has stated that homosexuals should, “…fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely…To debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution…The most subversive action lesbians and gays can undertake-and one that would perhaps benefit all of society-is to transform the notion of ‘family’ altogether.” (Out! magazine, Dec./Jan., 1994)……………………………………………………………………

    Paula Ettelbrick, a law professor and homosexual activist has said: “Being queer is more than setting up house, sleeping with a person of the same gender, and seeking state approval for doing so…Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family; and in the process, transforming the very fabric of society…We must keep our eyes on the goals of providing true alternatives to marriage and of radically reordering society’s view of reality.” (quoted in “Beyond Gay Marriage,” Stanley Kurtz, The Weekly Standard, August 4, 2003)………………………………………………………………………………………

    I had to laugh at Jon Faine on the ABC today. He set out to scoff at my claim today that once you legalised gay marriage you could not logically deny marriage to, say, someone wanting to marry two people or even more. (Of course he did this while avoiding referring to me by my hateful name.) But when he put my argument on the Conversation Hour, the gay activist he was interviewing replied that he indeed saw no problem in three people or more forming a civil union of their own. In fact, he even knew of a gay threesome that shared a relationship.

    http://www.news.com.au/news/andrew-bolt-forum-150-june-16/news-story/f1da501a1c37d474a424495e0415c13f

  34. Leo G

    “Same-sex couples want legal recognition of their relationship and equality of treatment by the state.

    The demand to change the Marriage Act is not just from same-sex couples.
    Some radical feminists, like Fairfax jounalist Jenny Noyes argue that “the existence of marriages between people of the same sex is an essential stepping stone towards overturning archaic attitudes about gender roles for which traditional marriage (and the patriarchal societies under which it arose) is largely to blame.”
    Others, like lesbian rights activist Julie Bindel argue that that lesbian marriage is not enough to subvert the heterosexual, patriarchal narrative, that it perpetuates privilege and consequentially same sex marriage should only be supported where it can be used to undermine the heterosexual fabric of society.
    Then there’s the odd useful idiot, like same sex marriage advocate and former Liberal Party leader John Hewson.

  35. Felix Kruell

    Felix, it’s far from ideal to bring a life into the world via a desperate person on gumtree who possibly as Hep B, AIDS or anything.

    I’ve heard some people (teenagers even) hookup in bars and clubs or on nasty apps and just procreate without even knowing each other’s name, let alone hep b status. The horror! No marriage for them!

  36. Felix Kruell

    Megan:

    Perhaps you can explain to me how depriving a child of the complete knowledge of their human, medical and cultural history is an expression of love?

    Neither nature nor society guarantees a child these things. But the gay parents I know go to great lengths to ensure their children know their biological history, and the story of how they came about. They are the product of love, even if not the product of sex.

  37. Felix Kruell

    Gay people are not ‘having’ children. When you procure a child from another person, whether by adoption or surrogacy, you are not ‘having’ children at all, you are procuring a child. And, of course, since this does depend upon adoption and surrogacy laws that were only recently though surreptitiously amended, they could be easily and rightfully be reversed.

    Yes, they’re having children. That’s what it’s called. Some are giving birth to them. Others just providing the sperm. It’s been going on since well before it was legalised. And it’s an expression of love, because two people chose to become parents and raise a child. It’s quite a sacrifice as any parent can tell you.

    You seem very hung up on the process. We don’t judge parents because of whether they needed ivf, or whether they adopted (if straight). Most kids don’t really focus on the process of how they were conceived, as long as they don’t feel deceived. Kids of gay couples probably have better knowledge than their peers.

  38. Felix Kruell

    Senile:

    Now, “gay marriage” is supposed to be about “love”. But it is “love” for each other.

    Or if they have children, love for each other and their children. A common good, as you called it.

  39. Neither nature nor society guarantees a child these things.

    Who said anything about ‘guaranteeing’. Surrogacy involves the deliberate intention of denying a child the care and education owed to it by its biological parents. However sincere a same-sex couple’s desire may be doesn’t’t obviated this crucial fact. To say that simply because something is not guaranteed it is of no importance is utterly absurd.

  40. Yes, they’re having children. That’s what it’s called. Some are giving birth to them. Others just providing the sperm. It’s been going on since well before it was legalised. And it’s an expression of love, because two people chose to become parents and raise a child. It’s quite a sacrifice as any parent can tell you.

    No, they are not ‘having’ children. When third parties are providing either the sperm or the egg, the child is coming to term in the womb of another, and the act of conception occurs outside an actual act of love, well, you’re not fooling anyone by saying they’re having a child.

    You seem very hung up on the process. We don’t judge parents because of whether they needed ivf, or whether they adopted (if straight). Most kids don’t really focus on the process of how they were conceived, as long as they don’t feel deceived. Kids of gay couples probably have better knowledge than their peers.

    It’s not a matter of being hung up with ‘the process’, rather it is a matter of not denying the manner in which children are actually conceived. I’ve expressed no problem with adoption where it is necessary but it doesn’t occur in order to satisfy prospective parents; it occurs in the interests of the child.

  41. candy

    I’ve heard some people (teenagers even) hookup in bars and clubs or on nasty apps and just procreate without even knowing each other’s name, let alone hep b status. The horror! No marriage for them!

    That’s why the abortion rate is so high, Felix. Abuse of drink and drugs, unprotected sex, leads to abortions.

    A very serious social dysfuction … but let’s not complicate this post with the issue of abortion.

  42. Or if they have children, love for each other and their children. A common good, as you called it.

    Two sisters are living together and looking after the child of the second. The sisters love each other and ‘have’ a child. I suppose they should be allowed to marry.

  43. .

    Some love is more genuine than others…I agree though, let’s keep abortion out of this. It would barely register for gays and lesbians anyway.

  44. I agree though, let’s keep abortion out of this. It would barely register for gays and lesbians anyway.

    Indeed, which proves my point. And when it does it will have involved a third party.

  45. Felix Kruell

    rather it is a matter of not denying the manner in which children are actually conceived.

    No one is denying it. Just not making it the be all and end all of whether their parents get to marry.

    What makes you think adoptive parents don’t do it for their own gratification? And what makes you think children of gay couple don’t benefit from being raised by gay parents, particularly given the alternative?

  46. Felix Kruell

    A very serious social dysfuction … but let’s not complicate this post with the issue of abortion.

    Yet such actions don’t stop them from marrying or society encouraging them to do so…strange.

  47. Felix Kruell

    Two sisters are living together and looking after the child of the second. The sisters love each other and ‘have’ a child. I suppose they should be allowed to marry.

    What’s with you religious people and incest? Disgusting.

  48. stackja

    Romantic notions by a minority are not a reason for anything.

  49. Stimpson J. Cat

    the butt of many wisecracks.

    Gold Alan Moran.
    Gold.

  50. Stimpson J. Cat

    And what makes you think children of gay couple

    A gay couple cannot have children. One of them has to be a step parent.
    How do you decide which?
    What’s the question every gay parent dreads?
    When can I get to meet my real mum/dad, mum mum/ dad dad/genderfluid genderfluid/transgender transgender/insert appropriate pronouns etc etc?

    Oh, I’m a step parent and a real parent too not that there’s anything wrong with that.
    But my children know who their real parents are.
    They always have.

  51. Felix Kruell

    Oh, I’m a step parent and a real parent too not that there’s anything wrong with that.
    But my children know who their real parents are.

    And it didn’t stop you loving them, I trust? Or marrying for that matter.

    I don’t know where you get the idea that kids of gay people are somehow being deceived about their biological parents? In my experience they tend to know more about it than their friends with straight parents.

  52. No one is denying it. Just not making it the be all and end all of whether their parents get to marry.

    No, no, the ‘process’, as you called it, is of paramount importance when you’re claiming two men or two women can ‘have’ a child; they cannot.

    What makes you think adoptive parents don’t do it for their own gratification? And what makes you think children of gay couple don’t benefit from being raised by gay parents, particularly given the alternative?

    I didn’t say they don’t accrue any gratification from adoption, I said that is irrelevant. We have a system of adoption for the benefit of children, not for the gratification of adults. Further, I never said there was no benefit if the alternative was institutionalization, I said they fared better with opposite-sex parents.

    What’s with you religious people and incest? Disgusting.

    I never said the sisters had sex with each other, I said the sisters loved each other. Why did you immediately think that love immediately indicated a sexual relationship?

    I don’t know where you get the idea that kids of gay people are somehow being deceived about their biological parents?

    Has anyone said they are being ‘deceived’ as opposed to being denied their care and education.

  53. Mark A

    By God I’m happy I’m not in charge here.
    Dover, you are wasting your energy.

  54. Mark A

    dover_beach
    #2460307, posted on August 6, 2017 at 1:03 am

    My energy is boundless, Mark A.

    Double LOL, sell it to SA and you make a fortune.

    But really, arguing with closed minded pees?
    I find that exhausting and futile.

  55. Fisky

    What makes you think adoptive parents don’t do it for their own gratification? And what makes you think children of gay couple don’t benefit from being raised by gay parents, particularly given the alternative?

    I have no doubt that gay two parent parenting is superior to single parenting. But it’s important to remember that we aren’t debating this issue to advance the interests of children. It’s really about promoting Leftist totalitarianism. That is all. I wish it were otherwise, but the reality is that the Left just want to use gay marriage as a bait-and-switch. There is nothing genuine or honest about the policy at all.

  56. I have no doubt that gay two parent parenting is superior to single parenting.

    I think the evidence suggests they are more or less similar, although one Canadian study I know of shows children raised by lesbians far the worst. That they are similar suggests that children should always be placed with married opposite sex parents when they are available.

  57. And, of course, they always are, which indicates that gay adoption is an ideological adventure that is contrary to the good of the child but which edifies gay parents and their supporters.

  58. Fisky

    although one Canadian study I know of shows children raised by lesbians far the worst.

    I can definitely believe that. Anyone who has left their kids alone to be minded by their mother for more than a day, knows they will be returning to a state of anarchy. Two “mothers” would just compound the problem.

  59. Mark A, for the most part, I do this to sharpen my arguments, and for whatever benefit third parties reading the thread might gain.

  60. Fisky, that Canadian study was interesting because it also indicated that children raised by common law opposite sex couples fared similarly to children raised by a single mother or father or gay couple. So the claim that marriage and common law marriage/ concubinage/ cohabitation are the same is simply erroneous on a number of levels, for the spouses themselves, as well as for the children too.

  61. Fisky

    I bet single fathers do better than a lot of those other categories.

  62. A Lurker

    I wonder what Felix Kruell thinks about these loving gay parents…

    Item #1
    Item #2

  63. Megan

    But the gay parents I know go to great lengths to ensure their children know their biological history, and the story of how they came about.

    So a representative group of what ? Five, ten, twenty five? One hundred? And somehow that’s enough to tell you that all children being brought up in gay unions are getting this? The ones from the exploitation of poverty stricken women overseas get regular opportunities to meet? To understand their heritage and culture?

    They are the product of love, even if not the product of sex.

    They are not. No matter whether it is altruistic or for money. This is, according to many surrogate children (of all types of surrogacy including those born for heterosexual parents), nothing more than the buying and selling of children. In other words, for the especially dim, a form of human trafficking. Their words not mine. They are treated as commercial products, a commodity to be bought by those with the money to do it.

    And while I understand the agony of infertility and the great desire to have children, going after that in ways that gives you what you want but can have severe adverse effects on the child (and often too, the surrogates and donors), is not a zero sum game. It is very possible to be grateful for the chance at life but still have deep misgivings about the ethics and moral choices that brought that life about. The stories of those women and children are what should be important in the decisions we make, they have the lived experience of what it means.

    And thanks, Dover, for your sterling job on the barricades. I salute you.

  64. Haidee

    “. . . gay adoption is an ideological adventure . . .”
    Dover Beach – sterling effort, true

  65. Stimpson J. Cat

    I have no doubt that gay two parent parenting is superior to single parenting.

    Excellent trolling Fisk.

  66. Felix Kruell

    The stories of those women and children are what should be important in the decisions we make, they have the lived experience of what it means.

    Plenty of these women love what they did, plenty of these children have no issue with the circumstances of their conception. Those few who have issues tend to now be evangelical Christians…what a coincidence.

    We don’t have enough of these kids to do proper randomised studies, although the limited ones done to date show no issue. So yes, my anecdotal experience is my best guide for the ethics and morality of this. And I see nothing but parents who go to great lengths to have a family, and love their kids. The kids are alright too.

  67. Felix Kruell

    Lurker:

    I wonder what Felix Kruell thinks about these loving gay parents…

    You really want to play that game? We have had two straight parents charged with driving their kids into a lake to drown a horrible death in just the last few years. A father charged with setting his 5 year old alight.

    There are some horrible people in the world. When they take it out on their kids, they tend to be reluctant parents in the first place. Not really common amongst same sex parents.

  68. Felix Kruell

    Dover:

    I never said the sisters had sex with each other, I said the sisters loved each other. Why did you immediately think that love immediately indicated a sexual relationship?

    If this is you sharpening your arguments, you have a little ways to go. You wanted the sisters to be married. And you said marriage was all about sex and children. I just put two and two together.

    The sibling arguments is an old one. If you can’t tell the difference between sibling love and romantic love, you’re getting one of them very very wrong.

    The reasons your arguments no longer resonate, and the majority are for same sex marriage, is that people now know openly gay people and couples. They know their love is romantic, and not the same as their love for their siblings or friends. They treat them as any other couple. They see them raise kids in the same way as other couples. So they wonder why they can’t marry like other couples? Certainly the ones I know, the only difference in a practical sense is what they do in the bedroom. Not something that concerns me with any of my friends frankly.

  69. If this is you sharpening your arguments, you have a little ways to go. You wanted the sisters to be married. And you said marriage was all about sex and children. I just put two and two together.

    No, no, anyone reading my comment in the flow of the argument would have noticed I was introducing a reductio ad absurdum to your assertions re ‘having’ and ‘loving’, and this would have been made obvious by the “I suppose they should be allowed to marry” at the end of my comment.

    The sibling arguments is an old one. If you can’t tell the difference between sibling love and romantic love, you’re getting one of them very very wrong.

    An argument may be old but since when did age make an argument false? Nevertheless, you seem to be making contradictory arguments here. On the one hand you want to say that what so and so does ‘in the bedroom’ is not my concern, and then on the other hand, you want to say that ‘sibling marriage’ is ‘disgusting’ because sibling love should never be expressed sexually as love is when it involves love between spouses. But, what concern is it of yours what two siblings do in the privacy of their own bedroom? Further, if we can say that sibling love should not be expressed sexually because it perverts the relationship in this or that way, why can’t the same be said about relations between the same-sex?

    The reasons your arguments no longer resonate, and the majority are for same sex marriage, is that people now know openly gay people and couples. They know their love is romantic, and not the same as their love for their siblings or friends. They treat them as any other couple. They see them raise kids in the same way as other couples. So they wonder why they can’t marry like other couples? Certainly the ones I know, the only difference in a practical sense is what they do in the bedroom. Not something that concerns me with any of my friends frankly.

    No, no, this is just a continuation of your earlier fallacies. They do not ‘have’ and then ‘raise children’. This is something that always requires an opposite sex third party who is used for the generative purpose; you are simply equivocating with your usage of ‘have’. Further, it is only something a minority of same-sex couples do anyway, about 5% of gay couples and about 25% of lesbian couples have the care and custody of a child, a child which is always biologically unrelated to one of partners (I’d wager that quite a few of the children in the latter are vestiges of a previous opposite sex relationship too). So, if people are concluding that same-sex partnerships generate children, and/or that they largely involve the care and education of children, they are reasoning incorrectly. Of course, the reason why the above is the case, as you say, in a practical sense, is the result of what they cannot achieve ‘in the bedroom’. Not that what this or that particular couple does concerns me, but it is something that cannot be ignored when discussing what is and is not marriage.

  70. We don’t have enough of these kids to do proper randomised studies, although the limited ones done to date show no issue. So yes, my anecdotal experience is my best guide for the ethics and morality of this. And I see nothing but parents who go to great lengths to have a family, and love their kids. The kids are alright too.

    This is grotesquely wrong. Do we really need ‘proper randomised studies’ to determine if something is in principle morally wrong, no, we don’t. Imagine, for instance, if a local area hospital randomly redistributed newborns in their care to parents attending that hospital. Would we need a ‘proper randomised study’ to determine if the children or the parents were wronged by these acts? No, we wouldn’t. Would we have to fend for ourselves with our anecdotal experience? No, we wouldn’t. If you imagine we would you need to check your premises.

  71. maman

    Dover Beach, can you help me out please? There is much logical dissonance and argument that morphs over time surrounding the idea of “Marriage Equality”, your responses are clarifying and helpful.

    But what I still don’t understand is why the “Marriage Equality” argument is restricted to just homosexuals.

    If the historical understanding of the word “Marriage” is changed and gender is removed from the definition, it becomes a contract of “Love” between adults – will it then become possible for siblings who “Love” each other to “Marry”; for parents to “Marry” their offspring? In the 21st century the genetic barriers that result from incest are removed when adults can use IVF, overseas surrogates etc. – just as homosexuals do. Why is it that we are assuming that just homosexual people should benefit from any changes to “Marriage”? Shouldn’t we be more inclusive … perhaps?

  72. If the historical understanding of the word “Marriage” is changed and gender is removed from the definition, it becomes a contract of “Love” between adults – will it then become possible for siblings who “Love” each other to “Marry”; for parents to “Marry” their offspring?

    Indeed, it certainly may come about. There could be no in principle objection to incestuous ‘marriage’ given the argument’s of the proponents of ‘marriage equality’. Further, polyamorous ‘marriages’ (marriages between 3 or more people of whatever sex) could also become recognized as marriage, again because there could be no in principle objection given their arguments. If you redefine marriage such that it is no longer a relationship between the sexes, then why must it also be only between two people, or a commitment made so long as ‘both [spouses] shall live’?

    There are really two problems with ‘marriage redefinition’. Firstly, it gravely misunderstands what marriage is, and secondly, the attempt itself to redefine reality is an enormity.

  73. Fisky

    Whatever comes of this, it is time we recognise that the complete destruction of the libertarian movement is the main prerequisite for saving liberty in this country. We are never going to salvage anything so long as Leftist interference runners (which accounts for about 90% of “libertarians”) ruin everything. From open borders, to bakers/florists being arrested, to children being encouraged to change their gender…the mainstream libertarian movement fully supports all of these insanities.

  74. Fisky

    The level of freedom from government interference in this country has fallen, in inverse proportion to the rise of “libertarian” think tanks and intellectuals. If we shut down 90% of libertarian think tanks, and kicked Chris Berg and his weirdo colleagues off the ABC, we would soon see a magnificent renaissance in freedom in this country. People would have so much freedom, they wouldn’t know what to do with it all!

  75. Fisky

    Oh dear me. “Migrants” behaving like feral animals. Many libertarians approve!

    /pol/ News Forever‏ @polNewsForever 42s42 seconds ago
    More
    Hundreds of migrants just crossed the border into Spain, this is what it looked like.

    The Left considers this to be “cultural enrichment.”

    https://twitter.com/polNewsForever/status/894543280582656000

  76. maman

    Dover Beach @ 2462069

    Thank you for your reply. So much of the argument for redefining ‘Marriage’ seems to be run along the lines of asking us to “Never mind the quality, feel the width”. Bewildering.

    Just watched the interview with John Anderson (past Nationals Leader) on ABC. He acknowledged that a redefinition of ‘Marriage’ would be a “profound change” and that it required “cultural assent” otherwise it just adds further to the fracturing of our communities. Thanks for taking the time Dover Beach.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *