now my childhood sucked because my mother was a comtroling, munipulative, violent, wicked, bitch and homosexual people can be like that aswell,
Gay rights
- Thread starter Asguard
- Start date
now my childhood sucked because my mother was a comtroling, munipulative, violent, wicked, bitch and homosexual people can be like that aswell,
I think kids would have a lot of other issues to worry about. I think they would have a hard time at school, picked on laughed at. I also think that they would be embarrassed to show up at school events, concerts whatever with 2 dads or 2 moms. I bet kids in that situation try to avoid those kinds of things. I think maybe when they are younger like when they are kindergarten or whatever it wouldn't be such an issue. I think once they get a bit older though and when they are teens they will have a hard time. I think they are a great target for the bullies out there. I can only imagine the teasing they would have to endure.
I think if you think that kids and other parents would just accept it, you are dreaming.
I am not saying they should be picked on but that is just how ppl are, you can't stop it.
I think if you think that kids and other parents would just accept it, you are dreaming.
I am not saying they should be picked on but that is just how ppl are, you can't stop it.
i worked for a homosexual man a good few years ago now, and he married a woman just so that he could have children, and he was the nastiest man i have ever known he was so, bitchy!
and how sad is that!? I can see why he was miserable.
tell me then because i can't!
I am sure lots of ppl who are married still have sex with their partner but don't really DESIRE them anymore. I am talking about straight couples now. Lots of ppl stay married for whatever reason, the kids whatever but have lost that desire for their partner.
i agree!
One of my best friends was raised by her two adoptive fathers. She didn't become a lesbian either. She loves her fathers very much and is helping them plan their wedding which is scheduled for the beginning of next year, since same sex couples are allowed to marry here in California now (or will be soon). When we were in school she was always one of the popular kids and people thought it was weird that she had to fathers and no mother when they would come to school functions, but overtime everyone just accepted it. People would do stupid stuff like not let their kids go over to her house for a sleepover because of her gay parents, but as far as I know it was little thing like that gave her social disappointment, but everyone has less than perfect childhoods. I'm pretty sure it beats foster care and being shuffled from home to home for 18 years. No long term friends or family to make any kind of connection with. Thats so sad.
congratulationas to them cutsie, its about time and im ashamed that the US (which in general is more concervitive than Australia) is beating us to true equality
Also i disargree with your agrument (though i compleatly understand why you make it so please dont take this as an insult to you). Saying that its better than the lowest comon denominator (ie state care) is pritty insulting and plain wrong. Im sure that in general single mothers, single fathers, same sex couples and oposite sex couples all do exactly the same things to raise there children. Ie give them all the love and surport they can and to sugest that one group should be alowed to adopt simply because its "better than state care" is insulting to that love and surport.
You know what i find most amusing about this debate?
Its doing exactly what the parlimentry debate did and thats go on major tangents which im begining to think are planed by the oposite side to delay standed of living and anti discrimination for as long as they can. I wonder if the debate on womens rights went this way to?
I know that the debate on aborigional reconciliation has
(in the case of the apology, mostly by the same people)
When will politions learn to take the lead on issues like this?
They have been willing to go against public opionion to take us to war but they wont have the courage to improve the lives of a huge section of the comunity
To be honest i judge labor harsher than the Libs on this because they are surposed to be the left wing party. They are surposed to have there surporter base in the working class and the disadvantaged. The Libs position is more understandable because there surport comes from the rednecks, the biggots and the church and so them moving first would be harder but even some of there own pollies must see the wrong in this. People like Turnbul and Pine must KNOW that this is wrong (as they stated in there speaches) and still are not doing anything about it.
On the labor side Peter garrot (ok i know he is a sell out) though out his whole singing carrer was the champion of equality for all people yet i didnt even HEAR him in the debate
On one hand the fact that this is a partisan issue is a good thing, it shows that the pollies have refused to treat it as a controvertial "moral" issue like they did with RU486. This is a good thing as it means either that its being seen as a mainstreem issue or that the political damage of voting against it is just to great (like the aborigional apology). Yet we still are only debating finatial law (which i do admit is a huge problem) rather than the marrage act or the anti discrimination act which is where we SHOULD be.
And to throw in an insult at the whole adoptive comunity on top of this is wrong on so many levels. The sad thing is i thought this debate would recive alot of coment from the political anylists yet i am yet to hear ONE person mention it. Maybe the polies chose this week on purpose where the publics focus is on the US politics rather than at home or maybe its just a happy coincidence for them yet the fact stands that even though the press gallery watches all of parliment, not even the ABC have mentioned this debate
Its apaling that in a world where discriminating against someone based on there race, religion, gender, marital statice, wether they are pregnant or have children ect are all illegal acts the parliment itself still discriminates against this one group
Tiassa my next post is going to be a huge slab of text copied out of hansard. I do this because to the documents are at least 185 pages long and most of its irralivent to the debate in question
If you wish to delete it i wont object but i feel that as this debate is the center of this thread the text of that debate is highly relivent and this is the best way to give it
Also i disargree with your agrument (though i compleatly understand why you make it so please dont take this as an insult to you). Saying that its better than the lowest comon denominator (ie state care) is pritty insulting and plain wrong. Im sure that in general single mothers, single fathers, same sex couples and oposite sex couples all do exactly the same things to raise there children. Ie give them all the love and surport they can and to sugest that one group should be alowed to adopt simply because its "better than state care" is insulting to that love and surport.
You know what i find most amusing about this debate?
Its doing exactly what the parlimentry debate did and thats go on major tangents which im begining to think are planed by the oposite side to delay standed of living and anti discrimination for as long as they can. I wonder if the debate on womens rights went this way to?
I know that the debate on aborigional reconciliation has
(in the case of the apology, mostly by the same people)When will politions learn to take the lead on issues like this?
They have been willing to go against public opionion to take us to war but they wont have the courage to improve the lives of a huge section of the comunity
To be honest i judge labor harsher than the Libs on this because they are surposed to be the left wing party. They are surposed to have there surporter base in the working class and the disadvantaged. The Libs position is more understandable because there surport comes from the rednecks, the biggots and the church and so them moving first would be harder but even some of there own pollies must see the wrong in this. People like Turnbul and Pine must KNOW that this is wrong (as they stated in there speaches) and still are not doing anything about it.
On the labor side Peter garrot (ok i know he is a sell out) though out his whole singing carrer was the champion of equality for all people yet i didnt even HEAR him in the debate
On one hand the fact that this is a partisan issue is a good thing, it shows that the pollies have refused to treat it as a controvertial "moral" issue like they did with RU486. This is a good thing as it means either that its being seen as a mainstreem issue or that the political damage of voting against it is just to great (like the aborigional apology). Yet we still are only debating finatial law (which i do admit is a huge problem) rather than the marrage act or the anti discrimination act which is where we SHOULD be.
And to throw in an insult at the whole adoptive comunity on top of this is wrong on so many levels. The sad thing is i thought this debate would recive alot of coment from the political anylists yet i am yet to hear ONE person mention it. Maybe the polies chose this week on purpose where the publics focus is on the US politics rather than at home or maybe its just a happy coincidence for them yet the fact stands that even though the press gallery watches all of parliment, not even the ABC have mentioned this debate
Its apaling that in a world where discriminating against someone based on there race, religion, gender, marital statice, wether they are pregnant or have children ect are all illegal acts the parliment itself still discriminates against this one group
Tiassa my next post is going to be a huge slab of text copied out of hansard. I do this because to the documents are at least 185 pages long and most of its irralivent to the debate in question
If you wish to delete it i wont object but i feel that as this debate is the center of this thread the text of that debate is highly relivent and this is the best way to give it
I apologise that this post is so long but i belive that as this thread is about a parlimentry debate the parlimentry debate is HIGHLY relivent. That being said i am not trying to compel anyone to read it, this is only here for refernce and for those interested in the debate as it was held. The only editing i have done have been a couple of entered lines and underlining the members names to make it easier for you all to find them. This are directly copied from the Hansard records of the comonwealth parliment found http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/hansreps.htm (please note if you look up the material yourself the numbers in the index DONT coincide with the numbers in the PDF file, you need to add 16 pages onto the contence reference in those 2 documents)
Hansard said:
Last edited by a moderator:
they say that a girl with two mothers has a higher chance of becoming a lesbian.
why do you think so? i had a perfect childhood
superstring01
Moderator
By the many arms of Vishnu, Asguard, that was long. Maybe just the link would havce been sufficient!
~String
~String
String, normally i would just have linked but as the second document was 186 pages long and that was only 5 of them i felt that posting rather than linking was a better option. As i said it came from the offical record of parliment (Hansard) which lists EVERY word spoken in parliment (more or less) and there are at least 22 bills alone before the house currently so the chances of anyone finding that paticular debate amoungst the other bills (across 2 days i might add) is slim to none
I apologise however if you disagree
I apologise however if you disagree
heard the argument that 'kids with gay parents wouldn't be accepted by society, therefore it is a reason to prevent gay couples adopting. risks to the child'
surely giving people the chance to meet a gay couple raising children would let people realise its ok (remember they're only competing with other couples parenting skills, which in so many cases are poor.) preventing gays from adopting is denying them the chance to prove their worth and capability, will we seriously not even give them a chance? the risks to the child are the same for children of any minority, some people disapprove of every kind of upbringing.
there are children being raised by extreme fundamentalists, by psychopaths, by whatever faction or identification you have prejudice towards, and we can't let gay people raise kids?
is the need for a daddy and a mummy so great that when a parent dies the children should be put into state care?
this is just my understanding, but not having a father can lead to hyper masculinity. without the male role model, boys grow up not realising that being a man isn't like the movies. there is a chance of being overly violent, alcoholic etc. so there is something to be said for having both parents.
i feel this is irrelevant for a bunch or reasons, but am running late and my gf is already pissed off. figure them out guys!
surely giving people the chance to meet a gay couple raising children would let people realise its ok (remember they're only competing with other couples parenting skills, which in so many cases are poor.) preventing gays from adopting is denying them the chance to prove their worth and capability, will we seriously not even give them a chance? the risks to the child are the same for children of any minority, some people disapprove of every kind of upbringing.
there are children being raised by extreme fundamentalists, by psychopaths, by whatever faction or identification you have prejudice towards, and we can't let gay people raise kids?
is the need for a daddy and a mummy so great that when a parent dies the children should be put into state care?
this is just my understanding, but not having a father can lead to hyper masculinity. without the male role model, boys grow up not realising that being a man isn't like the movies. there is a chance of being overly violent, alcoholic etc. so there is something to be said for having both parents.
i feel this is irrelevant for a bunch or reasons, but am running late and my gf is already pissed off. figure them out guys!
Bull fucking shit. A child just needs a stable, caring environment to grow up in. Many heterosexual couples do not aspire to this, and even if there is a happy home environment, many people work away from home for long periods of time (oil rig workers, sailors, soldiers etc) so kids are left with just one parent to bring them up often, and this is before we talk about one parent families.
You spammed the thread. Please tidy it up.
Good job people don't make such rash judgments about short bisexual dole scroungers, or you might find yourself labelled along with the rest of them, like you have labelled all homosexuals 'cos you met one, once.