Gay marriage in Australia

[krypton iodine sulfur]

I would say that homophobes would not be advocating the level of support and protection for homosexuals that I am advocating.

You would be wrong. You essentially want to keep gay people down a rung on the social ladder due to unfounded fears of some sort of mystery repercussions.

I view homosexuality a certain way. You view it a different way. We don't really know what homosexuality is though so either of us could be right. Until we do know I advocate a circumspect but humane and supportive treatment of the condition.

We know that there is no reason of social interest to remain circumspect of recognizing full equality of LGB people. The way you view homosexuality is highly improbable and inconsistent with modern psychology and medicine, which moved away from your way of thinking as time proved it unfounded and unwarranted. You cannot be right absent a miracle.

I am not preaching. All I hear in the media at the moment is how 'its just a matter of time' before marriage is changed to include homosexual partnerships. I think that is not a true reflection of the majority's true feelings on the subject but I think people fear voicing any opposition precisely because they fear this politically correct branding of them as 'homphobes' and 'bigots' when there are perfectly good reasons to be a little more cautious about this issue than the media frenzy would suggest.

They're basing it off of poll data. It's not impossible for a poll to be wrong, at least on poll indicated 72% of the population supported same-sex marriage. It would have to be really wrong for you to be right. So if we could just see what you're basing your statement on, maybe we could see which position is better supported.

http://www.crosbytextor.com/news/record-support-for-same-sex-marriage/

 

[fromderinside]

As I noted in the next post from yours the situation developed in large part for legal reasons. Secondarily there is discrimination against those who practice sex differently from 'norms' on mostly religious and yuck based grounds. Beating, denigrating, killing, anybody for any perceived difference is just plane wrong. If one can write laws so that those who do these thing to others come to justice then we don't need such as flimsy hairs upon which to base our societal sanctions. Of course the discourse is going to extend until the sought denigrating practices are quashed.

The legals can be worked out with a bit of patience e.g. change all the legislation so it refers to partnerships instead of marriages.

Nobody is being beaten or killed they are just being asked to start their own tradition and leave existing ones alone.

What? ...and take an undeserved privilege away from primarily white heterosexual couples ... and cost companies lots of money at the same time ...and potentially destroy the strangle hold male dominated society has on women. RU out of your F'ing mind. Besides that's been tried for over seventy years without budging it. Much simpler to make every private civil partnership a marriage and leave the legal system to try to change itself so it can go back to the bad old days.

Haven't you noticed that's what is taking place for women's right to choose and for racial equality?

Perhaps some things are so obvious one never sees the blight on one's face when they try to make things like the good old days.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I think the majority of society has accepted that homosexual unions are things that are worthy of legitimate support. I don't think the majority of society views homosexual partnerships as 'the same thing' as marriage. I am not sure what 'evidence' you want me to present, that is just my gut feeling about the status quo.

I'm talking about linguistic evidence, not about gut feelings. That's because you made a semantic claim - a claim about the meaning of the word "marriage" -, so the evidence would about how people seem to be disposed to use the word "marriage".

The majority of people in Australia do support allowing gay people to marriage - as it's already allowed in some states in the US, in Canada, and New Zealand. Those people do not seem to use the word "marriage" in a way such that it excludes marriages between, say, two men or two women in Canada.
If you think they're being insincere or that they're making a mistake and applying the word "marriage" to relationships that do not match the conditions to be a marriage under their own usage of the word "marriage", I would ask you to present evidence supporting your belief. In absence of that, you have a gut feeling and nothing else, vs. the polls - and one can reckon from them in terms of usage of the word "marriage".

For example, in Australia, I can link to some polls: (but polls indicate a majority supporing same sex marriage in other predominantly English-speaking countries).

http://www.crosbytextor.com/news/record-support-for-same-sex-marriage/
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollytics/2010/12/06/public-opinion-on-same-sex-marriage/
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-03-07/vote-compass-nsw-gay-marriage/6286440
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...change-poll-20130824-2si1q.html#ixzz2dnyLEVOY

Or consider the case of Ireland, where there was a referendum on same sex marriage (e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirt...he_Constitution_(Marriage_Equality)_Bill_2015 ).

The question was whether to instert the following line (in the English version) in the Constitution: (side note: English is the most common language in Ireland)

Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex.​

The word "marriage" was used. Support for the amendment won by a 62%-38% margin.
If most of those voters in Ireland used the word "marriage" in a way such that no same-sex relationship can be a marriage, then it seems that they would have almost certainly voted against the amendment, unless they mistakenly believed that same-sex relationships had some property they don't have - some property that is required to be a marriage, as the word "marriage" is used by those Irish voters (not by some other people; remember we're talking about the meaning of a word).

However, given that the matter was publicly debated and there seems to be no evidence supporting such an error, the most probable scenario by far is that those Irish voters actually use the word "marriage" in a way that includes some same-sex relationships.
As a parallel, if we observe that the vast majority of people in Ireland look at an Airbus A 380 and call it a "plane", with no apparent mistake on their part about the properties of the A 380, the most likely scenario is that going by the way most people in Ireland use the word "plane" (at least, in one of its usages), an A 380 is a plane. If someone argued it's not a plane under their usage of "plane", they would need to provide some counter evidence (in the broad sense of "evidence", perhaps including several arguments, etc.).
Now, in some cases, there is evidence to counter that: for example, if most people in Ireland (e.g., in the past) described same-sex [sexual] relationships as "immoral", that would provide some evidence in support of the view that the word "immoral" was used in a way that actually described all same-sex relationships, but there is stronger counter evidence indicating they were making a mistaken assessment. But again, if you think they're making a mistaken assessment, what is the evidence that counters the evidence I provided?

While not all people in Ireland voted, and while that was not in Australia, the point is that the results are in line with opinion polls across the predominantly English-speaking world.

Now, in light of that, I would ask you:

a. Do you believe that some same-sex relationships are marriages, under the most common meaning of the word "marriage" in Ireland? (not under your use of the word "marriage", but under their use of the word "marriage"; we're looking for linguistic evidence)
If not, how do you explain the results of the referendum?
Please keep in mind that the vote was secret.

b. Do you believe that the word "marriage" is used in Australia to mean something different from what it usually means in Ireland?

c. If you do believe that the word "marriage" in Australia is used by most in a way excluding same-sex relationships, how do you explain anonymous polls, in which large majorities express support for same-sex marriage?

Please do not answer question c. without answering a. and b. first. That would defeat much of their purpose.

One more point: this is not about whether most people believe same-sex relationships are the same as opposite-sex relationships, psychologically or in some other way apart from the linguistic issue (those issues may be a factor only as long as they're part of the conditions for something to be a marriage, in the way the people under consideration use the word "marriage" (not someone else).
This is only about the meaning of the word "marriage" - at least, in the most common usage in English -, since that's the contention of yours we're discussing (We're discussing that one because that's the part of my post you chose to reply to. If you want to discuss some non-semantic matters, I offer to do that as well, but let's try at least to discuss the semantics first, since you focused on that issue).
I've given my linguistic evidence and arguments based on that. I hope you'll reply.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Much simpler to make every private civil partnership a marriage and leave the legal system to try to change itself so it can go back to the bad old days.

Simpler and more cost effective.
If they legislate a 'civil partnership' and add it to every law, there will still be plenty of court cases as they try to wrangle out all the consequences. Every express mention of 'married' and 'marriage' and 'spouse' will have to be updated. Every form with 'married, single, divorced, etc.' will have to be updated.
They'll also need a new term for the cessation of a civil partnership, since 'divorced' had meaning connected to marriage.
And anything that doesn't specifically say 'marriage' will have to be examined for any existing assumptions that spouses get treated differently than partners. Which will usually involve a court case where someone says they do vs. someone insisting they don't.

And as mojo completely ignores, it's not just about the existing laws, but the policies of every organization and agency out there.

If a Catholic hospital only allows current spouses into certain patients' rooms, they don't have to acknowledge that a 'civil partnership' qualifies. Not until they've been taken to court to force them to, or until the someone threatens to restrict funding unless they do. But if we just accept that gays can call their partnership 'marriage' then they're spouses and already covered by the existing policy.

Tons of existing court case precedents will have to be reexamined in new court cases to see exactly what the effect of the previous decision about marriage or spouses has on the new world which has marriage, partnerships, husbands, wives and c-partners.

And if anyone's upset about the decision they make, they'll appeal to tie up another court into reevaluating the reexamination.

It's a whole lot of cost, with rewrites and reformatting forms and new filing systems to add and court case after court case after court case...And the benefit of all this change?
An unidentified silent group gets to feel chuffed about how one word is used in the language.
Oh, and further discrimination against gays can be made more easily. Which will deprive children of many protections, where 'closest living relative' will not be the person that's been tucking them in at night, but more distant, but legally recognized 'family.'

 

[fromderinside]

Much simpler to make every private civil partnership a marriage and leave the legal system to try to change itself so it can go back to the bad old days.

Simpler and more cost effective.
If they legislate a 'civil partnership' and add it to every law, there will still be plenty of court cases as they try to wrangle out all the consequences. Every express mention of 'married' and 'marriage' and 'spouse' will have to be updated. Every form with 'married, single, divorced, etc.' will have to be updated.
They'll also need a new term for the cessation of a civil partnership, since 'divorced' had meaning connected to marriage.
And anything that doesn't specifically say 'marriage' will have to be examined for any existing assumptions that spouses get treated differently than partners. Which will usually involve a court case where someone says they do vs. someone insisting they don't.

And as mojo completely ignores, it's not just about the existing laws, but the policies of every organization and agency out there.

If a Catholic hospital only allows current spouses into certain patients' rooms, they don't have to acknowledge that a 'civil partnership' qualifies. Not until they've been taken to court to force them to, or until the someone threatens to restrict funding unless they do. But if we just accept that gays can call their partnership 'marriage' then they're spouses and already covered by the existing policy.

Tons of existing court case precedents will have to be reexamined in new court cases to see exactly what the effect of the previous decision about marriage or spouses has on the new world which has marriage, partnerships, husbands, wives and c-partners.

And if anyone's upset about the decision they make, they'll appeal to tie up another court into reevaluating the reexamination.

It's a whole lot of cost, with rewrites and reformatting forms and new filing systems to add and court case after court case after court case...And the benefit of all this change?
An unidentified silent group gets to feel chuffed about how one word is used in the language.
Oh, and further discrimination against gays can be made more easily. Which will deprive children of many protections, where 'closest living relative' will not be the person that's been tucking them in at night, but more distant, but legally recognized 'family.'

Gays, as they say, pose as iceberg tip. Ya don't have to have a sexual relation to be partnered which is one reason, the major one IMHO, why the gay movement marriage attempt moved so rapidly. We're still assholes at our cores.

 

[DrZoidberg]

That is a subjective assessment.

I would say that homophobes would not be advocating the level of support and protection for homosexuals that I am advocating.

I view homosexuality a certain way. You view it a different way. We don't really know what homosexuality is though so either of us could be right. Until we do know I advocate a circumspect but humane and supportive treatment of the condition.

No. That´s not it at all. Gays don´t need your protection. They just want to be left alone. The kind of support and protection you´re offering is the kind of protection we get from the Maffia.

I´m fine with people viewing homosexuality any way they wish, as well as being homophobic. That´s not my issue. It´s when you try to force your view onto gays and push it into law that I react. Then it goes beyond just mere homophobia. The fact that you could have been more cruel, does NOT exonerate you.

Yesterday I heard a very term for this phenomena, "emofaschism". He described it as sensitive people using only their emotions to gauge what was right and wrong, and then decide for everybody else what they should think is right and wrong to, to try to make their emotional whims accepted as natural and made into law. This type of arguments from emotions is rife all over the extreme ends of the political spectrum from right to left. It´s the same kind of broken logic, "I don´t enjoy it so therefore it is wrong for others to do so and they need to be stopped".

 

[Keith&Co.]

I am not sure what 'evidence' you want me to present, that is just my gut feeling about the status quo.

So, when you said the tradition of marriage was universal, was that a gut feeling as well?
That it went back to the stone age, was that a gut feeling as well?
That science had only identified two species that bonded in homosexual pairs, there was no evidence for that claim?
Your efforts to interpret it as a bad thing for society, a bad thing for parenting, a bad thing for children, something that will one day need to be 'treated' and cured, is any of that evidence based or just gut feelings?

And any sort of evidence that connects the legal contract of marriage to an evolutionary function, that'd be a great spot of evidence to bring to the debate.

Because without it, you're just not making any headway in your fear mongering....

 

[mojorising]

Because without it, you're just not making any headway in your fear mongering....

I am not on a calculated mission to try and spread fear about homosexuality.

I genuinely believe that society has lost its perspective on this issue.

I think there is a political agenda behind almost everything that is considered media-friendly and utterable by a politician in 2015 w.r.t. homosexuality.

The truth is that we don't really understand homosexual pair-bonding and it is a pretty odd behavioural feature of the human species. Homosexual pair-bonding is very are in the animal kingdom - unlike tactical sporadic homosexual behaviour which has been observed.

I am not advocating stigmatising homosexuals but I am not in favour of society hastily putting homosexuality on a social pedestal by opportunistically enshrining it within the marriage institution while the political wind is blowing in a favourable direction.

I believe it does not deserve a position of equal acceptance with heterosexuality until we understand it properly. Until then I think homosexuals should be protected from victimisation and their relationships should be legally upheld but that is as far as i see society needing to go with this for the time being.

Yes, all of the above is just my 'opinion' but opinions are collectively what make a society what it is.

 

[mojorising]

And the other issue of course is adoption of children.

If we accept homosexual unions as 'marriage' it will become illegal to make any distinction between prospective parents who are a heterosexual couple or 2 homosexual men.

You can present fancy ephemeral arguments about how there is nothing wrong with this but my gut feeling (sorry!) is that society is just not ready for this yet.

I don't think a parent being forced to give their baby boy up for adoption for some unfortunate reason would be equally happy about the prospect of 2 homosexual men taking him home versus a married heterosexual couple. And promoting homosexual union to become a form of marriage would make it illegal to make a distinction.

I think we could review the situation in a few years when we perhaps understand a little bit more about the nature of homosexuality and its place in the world.

 

[fromderinside]

Because without it, you're just not making any headway in your fear mongering....

I am not on a calculated mission to try and spread fear about homosexuality.

I genuinely believe that society has lost its perspective on this issue.

I think there is a political agenda behind almost everything that is considered media-friendly and utterable by a politician in 2015 w.r.t. homosexuality.

The truth is that we don't really understand homosexual pair-bonding and it is a pretty odd behavioural feature of the human species. Homosexual pair-bonding is very are in the animal kingdom - unlike tactical sporadic homosexual behaviour which has been observed.

I am not advocating stigmatising homosexuals but I am not in favour of society hastily putting homosexuality on a social pedestal by opportunistically enshrining it within the marriage institution while the political wind is blowing in a favourable direction.

I believe it does not deserve a position of equal acceptance with heterosexuality until we understand it properly. Until then I think homosexuals should be protected from victimisation and their relationships should be legally upheld but that is as far as i see society needing to go with this for the time being.

Yes, all of the above is just my 'opinion' but opinions are collectively what make a society what it is.

What's happening is that surgery is being conducted on the existing heterosexual marriage tumor in government and society. Removing difference in what kind of bonding is socially permitted is being cured by removing preferences for heterosexuals, or put another way, giving the same preferences to other bonding pairs. Just as there is no war on Jesus there is no war on heterosexual marriage, of course, unless you think giving others the same perks is somehow denigrating.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

And the other issue of course is adoption of children.

If we accept homosexual unions as 'marriage' it will become illegal to make any distinction between prospective parents who are a heterosexual couple or 2 homosexual men.

You can present fancy ephemeral arguments about how there is nothing wrong with this but my gut feeling (sorry!) is that society is just not ready for this yet.

I don't think a parent being forced to give their baby boy up for adoption for some unfortunate reason would be equally happy about the prospect of 2 homosexual men taking him home versus a married heterosexual couple. And promoting homosexual union to become a form of marriage would make it illegal to make a distinction.

I think we could review the situation in a few years when we perhaps understand a little bit more about the nature of homosexuality and its place in the world.

Why aren't we ready yet? Given the decades worth of extensive data we already have on children raised by homosexual couples and how there's zero difference in anything about them as compared to children raised by heterosexual couples, what do you think would be learned in a few years which would give us new information that we don't already have?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Because without it, you're just not making any headway in your fear mongering....

I am not on a calculated mission to try and spread fear about homosexuality.

Sure looks like it.
What with calling it a disease that needs to be treated, appealing to some sort of risks for society, unspecified risks to the children.

The truth is that we don't really understand homosexual pair-bonding

We don't REALLY understand left handedness, like at times in history where they thought it was an evil influence. Not a reason to think that people who don't put u p with anti-lefthandedness have an agenda.

and it is a pretty odd behavioural feature of the human species.

No, it's not.

Homosexual pair-bonding is very are in the animal kingdom - unlike tactical sporadic homosexual behaviour which has been observed.

Well, you've shown that you're comfortable with the belief that researchers have 'shaded the truth' on homosexual behavior in the wild.
There are people who think that it's been underreported by researchers who did not want to be known as 'the guy who proved homosexuality is natural.'
They ignore it, or classify it as a 'dominance ritual' or otherwise marginalize the frequency of homosexual pari bonding in the wild.

Other researchers have noted it, including the black swan example up above that you have completely ignored. It's not sporadic and it's not dominance, that male black swans pair bond and take over nests and raise the young themselves.

Some other experts think that it's quite possible every species has homosexual members, did we just look closely enough, with eyes wide open, rather than people trying to downplay homosexuality out of a fear that they'd be laughed at in peer review.

I am not advocating stigmatising homosexuals but I am not in favour of society hastily putting homosexuality on a social pedestal by opportunistically enshrining it within the marriage institution while the political wind is blowing in a favourable direction.

Keep churning the indignation.
You could have been saying the same thing about black rights in the 1950s.
Or Jews at about any point in history.
Or Catholics about 1870.

Again, it's not 'HOMOSEXUALITY' being put on a pedestal. It's allowing homosexuals to join us on the porch.

I believe it does not deserve a position of equal acceptance with heterosexuality until we understand it properly.

What's the definition of 'properly,' then? Until we're able to eradicate it?

Until then I think homosexuals should be protected from victimisation and their relationships should be legally upheld but that is as far as i see society needing to go with this for the time being.

Fortunately for society, your need for discrimination is unfounded, unfair and unlikely to last.

Yes, all of the above is just my 'opinion' but opinions are collectively what make a society what it is.

I'd almost agree with that, except that you're also trying to demonize the opinions of that very same society, pretending that it's merely 'PC' or 'fear of PC.'

And 'opinion' is not much of a basis for legislation.

If it's only your opinion that there's a threat, then in my opinion your opinion can be disregarded.
If it's only your opinion that there's harm to children, then in my opinion your opinion can be disregarded.
As for the tradition of marriage, it changes, it's changed often, it's changing again. Life is change. Deal with it or stop wearing clothing and fashioning tools out of metal.

 

[mojorising]

What's happening is that surgery is being conducted on the existing heterosexual marriage tumor in government and society.

Well I suppose you could look at heterosexual marriage as a tumour within society if you want but it has been growing for a long time so it could require some fairly invasive and radical treatment to cure it.

 

[fromderinside]

Why aren't we ready yet? Given the decades worth of extensive data we already have on children raised by homosexual couples and how there's zero difference in anything about them as compared to children raised by heterosexual couples, what do you think would be learned in a few years which would give us new information that we don't already have?

Yeah, majorising. Let's put our tax dollars to work investigating something that really needs investigating like the effects of marijuana on the adult brain.

 

[Keith&Co.]

And the other issue of course is adoption of children.

Well, not JUST adoption. There's surrogacy and there are children from previous relationships, and people sleeping with other people in order to get kids to raise.
If you deny adoptions, they'll still find ways to get kids.
Like they always have....

If we accept homosexual unions as 'marriage' it will become illegal to make any distinction between prospective parents who are a heterosexual couple or 2 homosexual men.

Yes. No discrimination.
And, MAN, you're still hyper upset about gay men, aren't you?

You can present fancy ephemeral arguments about how there is nothing wrong with this but my gut feeling (sorry!) is that society is just not ready for this yet.

You don't pay nearly enough attention to society.
Gays ARE raising kids RIGHT NOW.
There are actual studies that have been done on the kids that result from this.
You could look for those, and maybe pile up evidence for your whining.

I don't think a parent being forced to give their baby boy up for adoption for some unfortunate reason would be equally happy about the prospect of 2 homosexual men taking him home versus a married heterosexual couple.

You miss the point of 'gave up their baby.' They don't get a vote any more.
And shame on you, for pretty much mongering a fear that gay men are pedophiles.

And promoting homosexual union to become a form of marriage would make it illegal to make a distinction.

Yes, exactly.

 

[mojorising]

I'd almost agree with that, except that you're also trying to demonize the opinions of that very same society, pretending that it's merely 'PC' or 'fear of PC.'

Well it is in the nature of opinions that they cannot all agree and discussion is how the social zeitgeist evolves. I would not say I am demonising homosexuality but respecting homosexuality and homosexuals to the degree that I think they deserve protection from historical victimisation and legal support for their partnership arrangements.

I think you would have to agree that making appropriate amendments to existing legislation is just as effective a way of achieving these practical legal needs as elevating homosexual partnership to be a form of our historical marriage.

Obviously from a political point of view you would rather see marriage changed to include homosexual union (notwithstanding the various obscure arguments I have heard that it already does) and I would rather see a more cautious approach but I don't think our views are as far apart as is being portrayed by many folk on this thread.

 

[fromderinside]

I think you would have to agree that making appropriate amendments to existing legislation is just as effective a way of achieving these practical legal needs as elevating homosexual partnership to be a form of our historical marriage.

Obviously from a political point of view you would rather see marriage changed to include homosexual union (notwithstanding the various obscure arguments I have heard that it already does) and I would rather see a more cautious approach but I don't think our views are as far apart as is being portrayed by many folk on this thread.

Read first paragraph and wondered from what century does majorising come.

Read second and found he's actually from this century,but, he's wearing blinders thinking those with power want to share it.

Examples of cautious approach include theological states, land reform agendas, despotism, and police states. Successes all./crazy

 

[Keith&Co.]

I would not say I am demonising homosexuality

That's exactly what you're doing. Homosexuality (at least as practiced by gay men, you ignore lesbians) is icky and probably a disease or condition and poses a threat you won't identify to kids and we shouldn't allow it.
Until science can say it's okay.
But you ALSO maintain that we cannot trust science that says gay is okay, because political agenda.

So, really, in your mind, gays would never have equal rights no matter how much science supports it because agenda.

but respecting homosexuality and homosexuals to the degree that I think they deserve protection from historical victimisation and legal support for their partnership arrangements.

But that would include protection from you, mojo, and your efforts to treat them as second class citizens.

I think you would have to agree that making appropriate amendments to existing legislation is just as effective a way of achieving these practical legal needs as elevating homosexual partnership to be a form of our historical marriage.

I think you would have to have skipped or not fully read my post about the extent that such amendments would clog the legal system for the foreseeable future.
And you're completely ignoring every single time I've questioned or rejected your claim that traditional, historical 'marriage' is something that deserves special treatment.

Obviously from a political point of view you would rather see marriage changed to include homosexual union (notwithstanding the various obscure arguments

Jesus Christ and his All Nurse Band, Mojo.
You simply MUST stop marginalizing every goddamned argument as ephemeral or obscure simply because you dislike them.
COUNTER them!
IF you have any evidence, then SHOW that they're piss-poor arguments. Or that they have a logical flaw.
Or pony up actual experts who have actual positions on the matter at hand.

Don't just hand-wave them off, because you look less and less like a debater and more like a fundamentalist who can't handle dissent.

I have heard that it already does) and I would rather see a more cautious approach but I don't think our views are as far apart as is being portrayed by many folk on this thread.

Yes, they really are.
You keep flogging 'separate but equal' as being a fair solution. But I've seen 'separate but equal' fail miserably in our civil rights issues. As long as two things are separate, they cannot be equal. And you even admit you want them separate for the express purpose of keeping them from being equal.

So you're discriminating against peole for no reason other than your fears of icky gay sex and maybe icky gay predation on kids.

 

[DrZoidberg]

And the other issue of course is adoption of children.

If we accept homosexual unions as 'marriage' it will become illegal to make any distinction between prospective parents who are a heterosexual couple or 2 homosexual men.

You can present fancy ephemeral arguments about how there is nothing wrong with this but my gut feeling (sorry!) is that society is just not ready for this yet.

I don't think a parent being forced to give their baby boy up for adoption for some unfortunate reason would be equally happy about the prospect of 2 homosexual men taking him home versus a married heterosexual couple. And promoting homosexual union to become a form of marriage would make it illegal to make a distinction.

I think we could review the situation in a few years when we perhaps understand a little bit more about the nature of homosexuality and its place in the world.

Gay adoption of children is already legal in most of Australia. There it works fine. Sweden has had legalised gay adoption since 2003. It works fine. There´s actually quite a long list of countries that have legalised gay adoption. It works fine. And more countries are coming along. As it happens gays are just as competent parents as straights. Legally, countries that have legalised gay adoption have removed the qualification that it needs to be a couple making the adoption. Now a single person can adopt a child. The system works fine.

Considering that there are more children in orphanages than parents who want to adopt, I can´t see why there are restrictions at all, beyond seeing to basic safety. I mean... there is no vetting of straight parents for childhood. They get to be complete fuck ups and still have kids. Which makes it a bit silly to have super strong restrictions on who can adopt. The fact that they want to adopt and are able should be enough of a requirement.

Most children who live with a biological parent comes from a broken home. That is standard today. So it makes no sense to demand that all adopted kids have both a mother and a father IMHO.

I think we already know everything we need to know about homosexuality regarding their willingness and ability to raise kids. I can´t see the point of any further study. We have studied it plenty.

 

[Keith&Co.]

what do you think would be learned in a few years which would give us new information that we don't already have?

I think it's kinda like the creationists who demand that we keep 'an open mind' on God and Genesis, until all the evidence is in.
By 'open mind,' of course, they mean 'don't make a decision until you agree with me.'

Mojo will insist that gay is harmful no matter what we learn, until he gets results he agrees with. Anything off point of that will be interpreted as not being science, but a political responsorial.