Sunday, June 10, 2007

THE BABIES FOR GAYS DEBATE

Yes, that was the heading on page 39 of the SundayHeraldCrumb.

On the gay side, talking about their twins and the Victorian Law Reform Commission were Sarah and Felicity Marlowe. As they pointed out "Nowadays it would be unthinkable for children born to unmarried heterosexual parents to be treated as "illegitimate" second class citizens. Society can, and does, change its attitudes."

The Commission reviewed 30 years of research and concluded that children are in no way disadvantaged by having same-sex parents. It showed that quality of parenting matters, not the parents gender or sexuality. It has made 130 recommendations.

For more information go to http://www.rainbowfamilies.org.au

For the nay side we have Peter Stokes, CEO Salt Shakers Christian Ethics Group. He's brilliant because he knows that only two people of the opposite gender actually fit together naturally. He also says there is no scientific evidence to suggest that anyone is actually born a homosexual. He has many friends who have left the homosexual lifestyle.
Then he quotes statistics, 50,000 marriages out of a total of more than 4.5 million, break down each year in Australia, 72 per cent of all children live with their biological mother and father and the vast majority of marriages are happy, monogamous and last a lifetime.

On the other hand, statistics show that few same-sex relationships are monogamous and they generally lack longevity. Most last less than five years and a large proportion less than two years. (That will be news to quite a few of my gay friends in fifteen to thirty years relationships)

He then brings out the usual arguments, depriving children of a natural mother and father, advancing the notion that children do not need a mother and a father, recognition of same-sex relationships will undermine marriage and it will remove the very foundation set by God and recognised by social analysts across the world as the basic building block of civil society.

Bill Muehlenberg, spokesman for the Family Council of Victoria, claims 10,000 studies show children are raised better under a mother and father structure and lesbian couples suffer a lifestyle choice of social infertility.

Why is it that when this is an issue of reform to remove unjust laws that directly effect children that christian men are speaking about it in terms of religion? I was under the impression that church and state were separate in this country.

But hetero parents are the best parents for children. I mean the Victorian firearms lobby must have stacks of hetero families and their way to keep children safe is to give firearms safety lessons to 10 year old children. They're going to give them a chance to shoot guns as well as they would undertake supervised shooting at shooting ranges.

According to Combined Firearms Council of Victoria president Bill Paterson, controlled use of real guns would counter damage done to children who use firearms for virtual killing in video games.

Jeebus hates crumpets, how do you deal with people like this. Aren't we enough like America now without this sort of rubbish? What was the point of the firearms buyback scheme if the lobby wants to teach kids to fire guns?
Firearms safety isn't an issue in a society that doesn't have guns issued at all. All farms have guns for humane killing of animals and farmers teach their own children how to use them.
We don't need this in our schools.
I didn't see Stokes or Muehlenberg being asked for an opinion on this. I can't think why not, they open their mouths about everything else.

5 comments:

stephen clark said...

I have some sympathy with your comments about Christian groups, but not all Christians are like the sort of bigoted rightists that you quote.
Indeed we probably dislike being associated with them more than you dislike their obvious bigotry.
Personally I have a bit of a simplistic approach both to gay marriages and gay parenting.
Is it just too simplistic to say that there is little enough love between people, and little enough supportive parenting, that instead of disqualifying people we should actually being trying to supoort those who give it a go

Andrew said...

Agree Stephen. It is all about love.

Miss Eagle said...

That's what we think at our place, Stephen, which tries to live a Christian lifestyle. And funny how many gays want to go to church as well! Miss Eagle would add that heterosexual men ought to have a bit of a think: heterosexual men as a class of people are the greatest threat to the life, health, and well-being of women and children. Can't remember hearing of the gay man who killed his partner and his children. And as for paedophilia, the heterosexual form - so I am informed - far outnumbers the homosexual form. Let's keep to the objective argument - the well-being of the children. I don't see that we heterosexuals are doing such a perfect job and the jury is still out on homosexual parenting, I would think.

JahTeh said...

I agree with you all. It just makes me angry that these men are the ones who get the publicity. Anyone who wants to take on the job of being a parent should get all the support because it's a rotten job with no guarantee of success but it's also one of the most rewarding experiences. I've made this point before that gay parents because they don't have to have children, have them because they want to be parents.
These recommendations will also help heterosexual infertile couples who need to use a surrogate mother.
I have no religious views at all but I do dislike the way the Holy books are open to interpretation by anyone with a particular agenda.

Mikhela said...

I particularly like the pointless comparison of straight marriages with gay and lesbian 'relationships'. If we included all the relationships straights had BEFORE they got married, I bet the vast majority of those would end before two to five years, too. If gay couples could get married, then we would be able to do some meaningful comparison on the rates of relationship breakdowns.