So, Dale, I'm not sure how many laboratory analysts there are in Australia, but I'm going to guess that it's a pretty small percentage of the population. I propose that we legislate that laboratory analysts be forbidden from marrying (and for good measure, prevent them from accessing certain benefits and legal rights in relation to their chosen partners and/or children that are available for everyone else). That's cool isn't it? Not many of you, after all, and I don't really care because it doesn't affect me. Don't get me wrong, I have lots of laboratory analyst friends and they throw such great parties y'know, such fashion sense too......

Now, now Mike, no need to get in a tissy.

Just pointing out some statistics, and those statistics could be very similar in this country.

After the dust has settled and gay marriage is approved, few gay couples might get married anyway.

But I guess the point is at least they're allowed to be married. Certainly there's no need to discriminate against parents despite or because of their gender. Paula makes some good points in that regard.

And another thing, what guarantee is there that homosexual marriage will be any more successful than heterosexual marriage? Just concentrating on successful, happy relationship should be the goal, not mirroring heterosexual norms. Unless homosexual couples are happy with a 25% divorce rate too.

You've managed to dismiss the substantial bulk of scientific research that disagrees with your own opinion as unscientific and ideologically motivated, whilst pointing to a single study as 'actual' and 'relevant'. By what standard did you judge that particular study to be of greater value than any others? Do you have any evidence to support your claims of corruption within the APA?

But anyway seeing as you seem to place it in such high esteem, lets take a look at the conclusion to the paper you linked (Regnerus, 2012): "The tenor of the last 10 years of academic discourse about gay and lesbian parents suggests that there is little to nothing about them that might be negatively associated with child development, and a variety of things that might be uniquely positive."

Furthermore, the paper goes on to state:

"Although the findings reported herein may be explicable in part by a variety of forces uniquely problematic for child development in lesbian and gay families—including a lack of social support for parents, stress exposure resulting from persistent stigma, and modest or absent legal security for their parental and romantic relationship statuses."

The paper states, explicitly and repeatedly, that the observed results are unlikely to be due to differences in the capability or capacity for good parenting, but due to differences in the social environment. It is truly outstanding that you would dare to describe Gerber's article as uninformed and biased, whilst failing to properly interpret the one credible resource you link to.

Lastly, you link to a piece of anecdotal 'evidence', as if the fact that one gay couple happens to have committed abuses has some bearing on the argument, as if such abuses have never, and are not commonly, committed by straight couples. Given the fact that the two men in that case are not married (as they are Australian), you seem to be advocating an even more extreme position then that in regards to marriage law. Do you believe the biological father of a child should not have the legal right to raise that child if he happens to be gay?

I'm a supporter of gay marriage.

I'm just curious why there is not a single article on the Conversation with a view like Dania's.

Does the Conversation advocate progressive politics? Great! Just say so. Don't pretend it's some sort of real argy-bargy mix of opinions.

Besides, according to at least some of our largest Australian firms and supported by the CEO and the Research and Policy Manager of one of our more visible advocacy groups, Bravehearts, men can't be trusted to be near unaccompanied minors even whilst sitting in an aircraft cabin. How on Earth can we take the chance of allowing two men 24 hour access to such minors?

Unless, of course, Bravehearts and the airlines are simply wrong.

@James: a simple perusal of the Editorial credits will reveal a strong ptresence of former Fairfax journos and a small leavening of journos from other backgrounds. I think it's a foregone conclusion that this particular journal will be as "progressive" as it can be made to be. However, I think you're forgetting another minor thing, which is that the source of these articles is academics, mostly academics in one of the humanities, which are not known for encouraging "reaction". Perhaps the reason for so many "progressive" articles is the presence of so many people who identify as "progressive"?

Speaking for myself, I like the articles on the whole. I'm a little miffed that the comments section seems to attract lots of people who express themselves through fairly mindless clicking of the "like" or "dislike" buttons, but don't see fit to express an actual point of view. It seems pretty pointless to me.

I'm sure if you put together an articulate piece based on evidence based research James, they'll be happy to post it. I think you'll find that the reason that such things aren't found here is because there is no decent evidence that supports the discrimination of a minority. I think the past few thousand years of human history are case enough for anti-discrimination causes.

Dania,

I really don't think that you can claim that the author of this article is biased, as though you are unbiased - you clearly have your own anti-gay agenda to push.

The study you cite, by Mark Regnerus (which is also the study discussed in your second link), has been repeatedly shown to be flawed - it describes as 'gay' or 'lesbian' any parent who has had even one same-sex encounter in his or her life. Instead of comparing the children of stable, heterosexual couples to the children of stable same-sex couples, it compares the children of stable heterosexual couples to those of parents who were not in a stable relationship and may have merely experimented with members of the same sex. In other words, almost all of the kids in the study were the product of heterosexual relationships, but in one group the parents stayed together, and in the other, family breakdown of some kind occurred (where this family breakdown included any kind of same-sex encounter). This study was designed, from the outset, to ensure that gay and lesbian parents would be perceived as second best - and you talk about bias!

In addition to this, according to your logic, heterosexuals should not be allowed to marry and have children because there have also been heterosexuals who have been guilty of child abuse. Your bias is very clear at this point in your comment - for no other group would you argue that the actions of a single couple should preclude all other members of the same minority group from marrying and having children.

Excellent work Dania, you came close a couple of times but you managed to get all the way through that comment without mentioning God once.

Never mind your anecdotes (no children have ever been harmed by heterosexual married parents I'm sure), or your links to research which explicitly makes no claims about the inherent capabilities of gay parents to parent. Even if it could be shown definitively that children of same-sex couples have poorer outcomes than the rest of the population - so what? I'm sure you could show that children of labourers in Cronulla have poorer outcomes than children of lawyers in Toorack.

When will you call for the banning of marriage in Cronulla? Or poor people generally? Won't someone please think of the children?

Thanks Mr Skeptic Cowley, I am sure that mentioning God was an oversight on my part, and you cleverly saw through the veil - how brilliant of you!

In my view, though important to some people, God has nothing to do with this argument, but reason does, and historical precedents, and social cohesion, and just plain objective truth. I am only responding to you here because you are representative of the 'great gaydom cause' trolls who infest any online discussion that happens to include a divergent view. I have no time to deal with the ignorant views produced by you lot.

I don't want to discuss anything with you, plainly there is no possibility of a reasoned exchange, and like Dan Savage (one of your movement's heroes), you demonstrate little capacity for civility. Instead, I simply want to use your posting as an example of how quickly simpletons produce a question about the role of God in this debate. True to style, trolls like you need to cowardly hide behind populist propaganda designed to label anyone that has the temerity to question the new family paradigm (which seeks not equality, but special rights) as Christian fanatics.

Of course, I could give you lots of objective information to counter each of the silly claims you spewed without any thought, but what would be the purpose? The likes of you are, like sheep, capable of only one task at the time.

It was sometimes ago when Euripides said "To the fool, he who speaks wisdom will sound foolish"

Well, I'm happy to agree that neither God nor Dan Savage are relevant to this debate in Australia. I'm further happy to stipulate that my first paragraph was a simpleton's cowardly trolling attempt at labelling you as a Christian fanatic and can be safely ignored. In future I will aim for your level of civility.

Now that we are friends again, how about some substance? You didn't actually say much in your first comment, apart from warning about the "howls" to follow, but the gist seems to be that your scientists are better than Ms Gerber's scientists on the question of development outcomes of children of same-sex couples.

My question remains - so what? Even if true, why should somewhat poorer outcomes for children of same-sex couples be a reason to deny those couple access to marriage, unless you are also prepared to do so for any other demographic group that also has poorer outcomes?

Thanks for your comment, Sashi

I don't have an 'anti gay' agenda. That's an 'off the shelf' term made available for convenient use by those that want to simply dismiss a divergent view in this matter. As far as I am concerned, gays can live their lives however they like, and I am happy to protect that right, as long as it doesn't impinge on my own civil rights or the freedoms I enjoy - you know, that Enlightenment principle of democratic reason best said by Voltaire's classic dictum, "I don't agree with what you say, but I will defend to death your right to say it". That is, I don't have to agree with the gay lifestyle, I only need to tolerate it. The problem, you see, is that the gay agenda is to make my approval of it mandatory. I didn't simply dream this - as far back as 1975, Time Magazine published a story on a gay man coming out in the military, a hero and a great champion of gay civil rights (who sadly died of AIDS when only 44). The gay activist Barbara Gittings was quoted in it as saying "What the homosexual wants, and here he is neither willing to compromise nor morally required to compromise, is acceptance of homosexuality as a way of life fully on a par with heterosexuality", to which the author commented "It is one thing to remove legal discrimination against homosexuals. It is another to mandate approval... ". Because I disagree with homosexuality being equated with heterosexuality, and facilitated through the vehicle of marriage, does it then follow that I have an anti gay agenda 'to push'?

Actually, Regnerus's study has not been discredited, there is a lot of misinformation in the media aimed at it - as expected, pushed by activist gay activists and a specific corpus of academic intelligentsia (typically represented by demonstrably biased perspectives, for example see Darren E. Sherkat's attacks and active measures taken to discredit Regenrus). It may help to balance your perspective to read scholarly perspectives in support of this work, e.g., http://www.baylorisr.org/2012/06/a-social-scientific-response-to-the-regnerus-controversy/ , or a more journalistic critique of the whole charade here: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/313108/regnerus-audit-robert-verbruggen. Whatever the case, what do you thing would've happened if the study, retaining exactly the same methodology, was to find the opposite? Apparently, the latter can be permitted, for some special reason. Heck, you only need to look at this publication to see how biased research designed to support gay parenthood (and so give more ammunition to the gay 'marriage' proponents) is: https://theconversation.edu.au/dont-believe-the-hype-kids-with-same-sex-parents-are-well-adjusted-6998. The title has already decided the outcome before the study has taken place! And the researchers seek to recruit self-reporting volunteers - I can just imagine what sort of data this study will produce. Welcome to how truth about gay parenting is manufactured!

In respect to abuse of children, I am not saying that heterosexual parents don't abuse children, but that gays do so disproportionally more than them. The evidence supporting this is striking, if you look at it. But even if you doubt such research for whatever reason, why don't you do a little bit of your own? Here is one simple method: Google media commentary on child pornography and pedophilia, see if you find anyone identified as a pedophile as gay. Of course not! Yet if it was a priest, that would be noted, probably in the headline. The media never mentions same sex gender in these cases, why not? See this recent example here: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/true-crime-scene/self-proclaimed-nudist-torsten-heggblum-found-with-13m-child-porn-images/story-fnat7dhc-1226459242718 the man is described as a nudist, but not as gay! You can see his gay profile here: http://www.myspace.com/adelaideboi But apart from this, ask yourself, how on earth can one amass 1.3 million images of young children (boys, mainly), and, if one uses their reason, can you imagine how many pederasts have been involved in producing so many images? Of course, there are heterosexual pedophiles as well, but use your common sense and do your own research on just what actually happens. Very soon you'll find that a disproportionate number of pedophilia involving boys is committed by homosexual men - all you need to do is to search reports and then look at who the perpetrators are.

Dania - you seem to use the term "research" to mean "reading stuff on the net" rather than the type of research that tests and measures things. "use your common sense and do your own research" isn not the same as looking at the outcomes of children in different types of families.

Media headlines tell us very little other than what the editor thinks might encourage you to read.

The reason priests are named in abuse cases is not just that this creates interest, but also because of the trusted position that they hold in parts of our society.

If stable same-sex couples are to be prohibited from having civil marriage because a small percentage of gay people are pedophiles, how do we avoid applying the same principle to straight people?

Ultimately, nodoby is asking you to agree with gay marriage, you only need to tolerate it.

Craig Minns - it's worse than you suspect.

Not only are some of the editors here "former Fairfax journos" (God forbid) but I've heard that some of them are even....... (shhhhh)...feminists!

"Not only are some of the editors here "former Fairfax journos" (God forbid)"

Perhaps you should stick to the little button thingies, it seems an unkindness to demand more.

Nah, I am not biting, Mike. I provided more evidence than you have. Now you are requiring me to provide more. This is another trolling strategy, a gear shift as you encounter a bit of resistance you can't easily overlook, and forces you into a different gear.

Before I engage you in a discussion, it's your turn to defend your position (if you actually have one): please show us how children of same-sex couples experience the same 'poorer outcomes' as children in socioeconomically disadvantaged areas. What is the data you're relying on? Any studies? Any arguments?

Thanks Dania,

I can see how little point there will be in responding to you again, but I'm compelled to do so! Your belief that the 'anti-gay agenda' is an 'off the shelf term' while the 'gay agenda' is not is further evidence of your bias in this matter, regardless of whether you belief you have such an agenda. I'm sure there are very few gay activists who care whether you approve of their 'lifestyle' or not (your approval is most definitely not 'mandatory' - of course you can think what you like). The problem is that to your mind, upholding your own rights requires limitations on the rights of others. Gay marriage will impact positively on the rights of gay people - it will have no impact on the lives of others.

I have read the Regnerus study, and I can assure you that his methodology is faulty. I know that you see anybody who is pro-gay as 'unbalanced' and any body who is against gay marriage and parenting as 'balanced', but I define balance rather differently. I don't really care 'what would have happened if the study, retaining the same methodology, had found the opposite'- the point is that it didn't. (And I could say the same to you - what if the study had compared children of lesbian parents in long-term stable relationships to children of heterosexual parents who were divorced, homeless etc.? Would you have objected to the finding that the former group did better?) Regardless of its results, they are clearly skewed by the fact that apples are compared to oranges. I'm not suggesting that the study proves that gay parents are good (although other studies have certainly proved this of lesbian parents, while more work needs to be done re gay male parents), it simply doesn't prove anything.

The vast majority of paedophilia is perpetrated by heterosexual men on young girls - this is a long-accepted fact. On the other hand, lesbians are the least likely to offend in this way. Perhaps lesbians, should be allowed to marry and have children, but no men should be allowed to do so?

Ah Sue, you again! Quick to cash in on the mobbing mentality here, trolling like Mike without actually contributing anything of substance, yeah? You obviously have a very limited notion of what research actually means. If you read what I said more closely, I didn't say that I was inviting people to conduct the kind of positivist, experimental type of research you have in mind - they don't need to submit it for peer review! If you must know, the interpretivist approach is probably a more suitable label for what I would do,anyway. When I invite people to do their own research I simply mean lay research, the kind we do when we want to locate or interpret information on something.

There is no such thing as gay marriage - as a 'clinician', I am surprised that you don't know the difference between copulation and other forms of sex, and that marriage actually refers (always has) to relationships that are based on the former, not the latter. There is no arguing around this fundamental point of difference between traditional and ss marriage which involves children. It's not merely about tolerating something I don't agree with, it is about justice. As I pointed out elsewhere, it is one thing to tolerate something and another to be forced to accept it. In your desired new reality, when gay 'marriage' is mandated in law will I have the right to respectfully disagree with it, and with the gay lifestyle and new demands for approval on society, without being taken before a court? Will you be able to guarantee me that liberty, Sue?

Hi Dania,

If I’m understanding it right, I think the question Mike asked isn’t asking you for more evidence. It’s asking you how we move from the premise that homosexual couples’ children are more likely to have these social and emotional problems to the conclusion that we shouldn’t have gay marriage. At least, that’s what I was wondering about your argument.

Do you think that if we allow gay marriage there will be more gay couples, and therefore more gay couples with kids, and therefore more kids at risk?
It’s possible it might work that way, I guess (I don’t want to put words in your mouth, so let me know if I’ve got this wrong). But surely there are other equally likely possibilities. One of the points of marriage, I take it, is that it supports and gives social approbation to long-term, committed partnerships. In other words, it helps relationship stability.

Suppose for a moment that’s true. If it is, of course we would expect to find that a group without the support of the marriage institution will be more unstable, and therefore more likely to have children with resulting problems from this instability. The Regnerus finding would be vindicated, but the policy reform would be the opposite of what you’re recommending. (Indeed, one of the sites you recommend (thank you for the links) says just that: “It is possible to interpret Regnerus’s findings as evidence for the need for legalized gay marriage, in order to support the social stability of such relationships.”)

Hello Hugh

Thanks for your questions, and thoughtful remarks. I know that you have argued on your blog for a conservative acceptance of gay marriage, as a matter of civil rights - which is an interesting take on this matter, especially in view of the fact that the gay marriage argument stems not from a want to have love being recognised equally (though this may be a genuine desire or want for some if not most gay people), but from an ideological drive to normalise non-heterosexual sex in society. We need to distinguish between right to be married and right to change marriage!

But let me start. Please forgive the lengthy posting.

The context. The gist of my argument is to challenge the misplaced arguments posed by Gerber in support of the proposition that the safest thing for us to do is to agree to gay marriage. I took a particular interest in the passage, "So a minimum of 6,120 Aussie kids are being denied the right to be brought up in a married household, because of the fact that we only allow heterosexual couples to wed. It is these 6,120 children we should be thinking more about, rather than any ungrounded fears about what allowing same-sex couples to marry will do to the institution of marriage."

So let's look at what is actually involved here:

Firstly, the couples that presumably Gerber refers to decided to have/adopt children WITHIN an existing social and legal system that does not yet (and may not for a while) recognise gay marriages. Then they demand (I assume this, because Gerber speaks on their behalf) to have the same 'rights' as heterosexual couples to 'marry'.

Secondly, the writer states that there are unfounded fears that gay marriage affects the institution of marriage, yet we have not one iota of evidence produced to demonstrate how such fears are unfounded.

Thirdly, Gerber does exactly what she and some of the commentators here accuse critics like me of: that we use research selectively and that the research we employ is biased anyway. She refers to a relatively old study from Canada, via a newspaper article which has since been quoted endlessly by advocates of gay marriage EVEN though it is being reported that the researchers themselves note that "... there is still too little research, especially about gay male parents, to reach any final conclusions" [http://www.canada.com/theprovince/news/story.html?id=38cc20ce-7f14-44ea-b4d9-d4cd16d7a269&k=9378]. Yet Gerber declares in support of gay marriage that, "This is because the research overwhelmingly demonstrates that same-sex couples make as good (or as bad) parents as opposite sex couples, in other words, the sexual orientation of parents has no negative impact on their children". If she had bothered to actually research the topic properly, then she would have come across very reliable studies which similarly note that the research is inconclusive on this topic; for instance this one from the sociologist Anne-Marie Ambert (York University, 2005) who is quite sympathetic to gays, but nevertheless states that, "We do not yet have research on same-sex marriage itself"! and "there are no large-scale studies of the life of lesbigay couples" and that existing studies "suffer from the fact that the couples are often selected by the researchers or they are self-selected" [http://www.vanierinstitute.ca/include/get.php?nodeid=1150].

Fourthly, Gerber is a lawyer - yet conveniently overlooks legal precedents which actually contradict her point of view about discrimination. For example, no less than France's Consel Constitutionel decided in 2010 that opposing gay marriage "...is not contrary to any other right or freedom guaranteed by the [French] Constitution" [http://www.conseil-constitutionnel.fr/conseil-constitutionnel/root/bank_mm/anglais/en201092qpc.pdf]

I could go on, perhaps moving onto how Gerber ignores, say, queer theory which condemns 'heteronormativity' (and hence traditional marriage?) but I am not here to write a paper - rather I hope you can now see where my doubts on the veracity and objectivity of the Gerber spiel above comes from?

In direct response to your first question, no, I don't think that legalising gay marriage will create many more married gay couples, the evidence thus far indicates that most gays don't actually want to marry even when they are allowed to. Which then begs the question: Why be so persistent about demanding special rights to marry? Which then brings us to a specific point - could it be that marriage is the vehicle through which gays get access to children, because it mandates the normalisation of gay sex? I am sure this will bring on giggles and ridicule from the gaydom champions, but I can only be influenced by what I read and observe. For instance, see this article on a prominent gay site, appropriately titled "Can We Please Just Start Admitting That We Do Actually Want To Indoctrinate Kids?", which states: "Why would we push anti-bullying programs or social studies classes that teach kids about the historical contributions of famous queers unless we wanted to deliberately educate children to accept queer sexuality as normal?" [http://www.queerty.com/can-we-please-just-start-admitting-that-we-do-actually-want-to-indoctrinate-kids-20110512/#ixzz252Yfw8EB]

In response to your second question, yes I think that, indeed, there are studies which found that SS couples provide less than ideal parenting; for example see this chapter excerpt here: http://mind.ucdavis.edu/people/pdhphd/pdfs/HoS%20Patterson%20-%20Hastings.pdf, where it is stated that, "Studies with older children and adolescents have shown that compared to children of
married heterosexual parents, children of unmarried but cohabitating heterosexual parents experience more academic problems, achieve lower grades, and have more behavioral problems" [there is no evidence that marriage will 'fix' the problem for children in these families]. And finally, no, I don't think that gay relationships are demonstrably more or equally stable when compared with heterosexual relationships, despite the upward trend in divorce and such. I could pull some literature to support this point, but I am getting too tired to go on. For now, suffice perhaps to pose a question: since the average lifespan of gay people is on average some twenty years less than that of heterosexuals, how does this then serve the needs of those children in their care better? This sad state of affairs is not due to socioeconomic factors (indeed, the research shows that gays are on average better off than heterosexuals on a range of indicators), but because of persistently risky sexual practices.

I hope that I have addressed at least some of your questions, and the long post is not too boring.

"Because I disagree with homosexuality being equated with heterosexuality ... does it then follow that I have an anti gay agenda 'to push'?"

Well, yes. You don't have to be advocating gay-bashing or criminalisation to be anti gay. And no, I am not equating those things with being against gay marriage, nor am I accusing you of homophobia. But it's still discrimination against a class of people based on their choice of life partner.

Hi Dania,

Thanks for your reply (not at all boring!). You raise a lot of interesting points, and I won’t ask about all of them, or I really would be requiring you to write a paper.

Thanks also for having a look at my blogpost – though just to clarify I wasn’t trying to argue for gay marriage in terms of civil rights, but rather on the basis of the tradition of marriage and the values and virtues that seem to me to be internal to it. It’s about being true to a tradition – that’s why I use the analogy to football and its values. (Or, at least, it’s about being willing to acknowledge that there are multiple traditions entangled in the social practice of marriage, and that a conservative may have to choose which marriage tradition they are being faithful to – the one emphasizing lifelong love and commitment, or the one foregrounding the man-woman partnership in particular.)

I just focus on what I take to be your main argument against my position (though I second Mike’s related point too).

You say parenthetically, “there is no evidence that marriage will 'fix' the problem for children in these families”. I figure that means you think my argument above is wrong. So either (a) marriage (and marriage’s social recognition) doesn’t help relationship stability and longevity, or (b) relationship stability and longevity wouldn’t improve these kids’ problems. I agree I didn’t give any evidence for either of these claims. But then, to me, (b) just looks like common sense. Actually, I think (a) looks pretty solid too. Surely a key reason why the institution of marriage is understood to be important is because, in its ceremony, public vow-giving and social approbation, it helps glue partners together for the long haul. If it has any influence on people’s behavior whatsoever, then surely it influences this, at least.

After all, it’s not as if you think marriage is socially ineffectual. Your argument against gay marriage is premised on the idea that allowing gay marriage would contribute to the normalization of non-heterosexual sex, and then that this would result in more people actually engaging in such sex. It’s not that I necessarily disagree with these predictions (though we’d have to cash out what we mean by ‘normalization’) – but it seems pretty strange to think the change in the marriage institution will be one the one hand strong enough to cause these social changes you predict, yet on the other ineffectual when it comes to enhancing relationship stability and longevity.

I see, strange sort of reasoning: one doesn't agree with something so they are 'anti-it', which then equates to discrimination. And the key term you employed there is 'choice'.

However, just because one 'chooses' something it doesn't automatically follow that they have a right to demand that others approve of it, and to demand that others must acknowledge their choices as being equal to any other choices on the matter of sexual 'choice'. I don't want to leave in a society that will ostracize me for believing that anal sex is not the same as heterosexual copulation, and for believing that they are not equal just because someone 'chooses' to practice one instead of the other. If someone wants to 'choose' to love someone of the same sex, good bloody luck to them - go knock yourself out (in your own place, not in front of my kids), but don't demand that I have to approve of it or to agree that it is the same as, or equal (or better, some argue!) to heterosexual sex.

And don't give me that stuff about discrimination, it's just ideological queer crap to say that heterosexuality oppresses gays because it has been viewed as the normal sexuality. If you choose a particular sexual lifestyle then demand that all institutions in society change to suit you, that's not going to work - never has, never will. The discrimination card is just simply garbage; if you remember, John Maynard Keynes lived in a more closeted society than we do today, but that didn't stop him from being a bisexual man exercising all sorts of sexual 'choices', while also fathering Macroeconomics and gaining widespread respect as an incredible scholar and visionary. He sparred much of his life with Frederick Hayek on the battlefield of theoretical economics, and we know that Hayek was a conservative's conservative, yet they remained otherwise good friends, and Keyne's sexuality never entered into it! But can we deduce from this that Hayek contributed to discrimination against a 'class of people' just because he didn't like Maynard's 'choice' of sexual activities? Give me a break.

Dania, I don't really want to start quoting dictionaries but being "anti" something is by definition being against or opposed to something. And so to "disagree with homosexuality being equated with heterosexuality" in the sense of treating people in homosexual relationships equally to people in heterosexual relationships is being anti-gay (on your own definition of what the "gay agenda" is).

I must admit I can't quite sort out the shades of meaning you are employing (in this comment and elsewhere) between "approve", "acknowledge", "tolerate", and "agree with", so I'm not quite sure how to respond to your second paragraph. However I think the essential point is - you can think whatever you like about gay marriage, but the request is not to prevent the changing of society's institutions to allow gay marriage.

And no one (sensible) says that heterosexuality oppresses gays. People (acting both individually and in aggregate as a society) oppress gays, some more than others, some not at all. And demanding that institutions in society change to suit you is a bad thing now? That's what people like Ghandi, Jesus, Mandela, Mary Lee, William Wilberforce etc were doing - were they wrong?

Finally, I'm struggling to put a charitable interpretation on your last paragraph - are you really saying that gay people do not now and have not in the past suffered from discrimination? Seriously? If that's not what you are saying, please clarify. Because to deny that gay people have been variously killed, beaten, excluded, humiliated, and persecuted all through history is.... well, please clarify.

Thanks Hugh and Mike for such lucid and persuasive arguments, I enjoyed reading them very much. You both make excellent points, which I would dearly love to respond to.

However, in response to Sue's admonition above, I stated that I have finished with posting in this thread (though obviously I had to break that undertaking just this once), and I will probably be banned for my retort to her (my only regret on this is that I didn't make it more colourful). I would be happy to continue this discussion by other means, especially as it is getting so interesting. Perhaps, if you'd permit me, I can comment on your blog, Hugh? or else please feel free to email me.

Keep right on posting Diana - please. Your clear and obvious personal prejudice and ignorant, poorly supported diatribes against homosexuality are doing the cause of Gay rights no end of good.

"In this country, the Family Law Act released many from these oppressive confines. Hundreds of thousands of women have raised their children very successfully without husbands/fathers."

So you are basically saying the Family Law court is biased towards mothers, and this is a good thing.

So which of the two in a gay couple should the Family Law Court be biased towards?

Neither - Dale - they should be biased in favour of the best situation for the children.

The old “best interest of the child” mantra. Unfortunately, the Family Court doesn’t check on the welfare of the child after it makes its decisions, so it rarely knows if its decisions were actually in the “best interests of the child”. Maybe it doesn’t want to know anyway.

It will be difficult for gay men in Australia to have children (considering the surrogacy laws). Much easier for lesbian women to have children through IVF, but divorces and separations between lesbian couples do occur with the same frequency as heterosexual couples. It will be interesting to see the judgements made by a Family Court regards who gets the children, and who has to pay her money to see the children.

Your first paragraph makes a good point, Dale. Any decision-making body like the Family Court should audit its results, and modify its approach accordingly.

I wasn't meaning to repeat a mantra so much as to take the focus away from "which parent".

So Gil, if you are indeed an anthropologist, could you illuminate for us how a child gets socialised into society's norms regarding gender roles and gender behaviour within the primary socialisation institution (the family) when the gender of parents don't matter, as you imply? If you need something to work with, how about this narrative from someone who has experienced growing up with ss parents? http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/08/6065

So Dania, if that is indeed your name, could you illuminate for us how a child gets socialised into society's norms regarding gender roles and the blah blah when the child is raised by...

- a single mother?
- a single father?
- a widowed grandmother living with her sister?
- Jesuits? (sorry, that was naughty)

Are you concerned that these gay parents are actually going to raise their children in a vacuum? Actually I would also be concerned if that were the case, because they would not be able to breathe, but I don't think that is the case. I suspect that children-of-the-gay-married might be exposed to, you know, other people - school mates, teachers, friends, family (teh gay can haz family!) etc.

Note that I am generously not raising the issue of whether getting "socialised into society's norms regarding gender roles and gender behaviour within the primary socialisation institution" is even desirable, given how dodgy some of those roles have proven over time. You may have even noticed that some of those roles have changed over time to accommodate previously unacceptable situations - like for example women working in factories (if you really are a factory worker, of course)...

Dania - how do children learn gender roles apart from their parents? Let's see:

- extended family
- neighbours
- friends
- teachers
- TV and movies
- internet
etc.

And what can they learn of gender roles from parents?

They could learn that Dad works and Mum stays home
They could learn that Mum and Dad both work
Mum and Dad both stay home
Mum works and Dad stays home
Mum and Dad both shout at each other all the time
Dad drinks and Mum smokes
Mum drinks at home and Dad stays at the pub
Mum sews and Dad mows the grass
Mum fixes electronics and Dad writes poetry
Dad cooks and Mum does the washing
Mum and Dad are best friends and hug a lot
Mum and Dad never kiss in public

Is one of these the right model? Or are there an infinite amount of models?

No Mike, until you can articulate an argument, I won't bite here either. Happy trolling!

Sue

I am not sure what these examples are meant to demonstrate, or communicate - I don't see them as models, but as behaviours. Are you trying to demonstrate how 'bad' a heterosexual marriage is?

I note that you can write well, even be a tad sarcastic, and you can obviously read. It also seems that you have an important profession, which I assume meant that you had to study and be supported by others whilst doing so. I am intrigued, so please can you tell me, what do you think provided the society which nurtured you to this point? Was it built around the so-called gay family structure? Why so hateful of tradition? For all its faults, how has the traditional family prevented you from arriving here, articulating a sarcastic rebuttal to a divergent view? Where is your conscience if you wish it to be different for others in their childhood?

No, instead of the irrationally-disconnected examples you have provided, I prefer to look at work of the likes of Cooley, Mead, Piaget, and so on. And I prefer to engage with a tad more sophisticated analyses, like Bourdieu's notion of individual cultural capital. Or the critique which Marx rises in his historical economic determinist approach to explaining the relationship between class conflict and the role of family in a capitalist society, and so on.

Peace, and please put your thinking cap on.

Dania - you have misread my tone. My random list of couple roles and behaviours was intentionally written that way to represent the diverse nature of these relationships.

How did I learn to write well, be sarcastic, and practice an important profession? From the whole world around me, Dania. Family, school, friends, teachers, books, TV, films....and more. SOme things I learned from my family were very valuable, some not, some I have discarded.

"For all its faults, how has the traditional family prevented you from arriving here, articulating a sarcastic rebuttal to a divergent view? Where is your conscience if you wish it to be different for others in their childhood?"

Sorry - but this part makes no sense to me. Please put your communicating cap on.

No Dania - as the "sail in and attack other commenters" person - if anyone is "trolling", the term would apply more to you than to Mike.

You have been asked legitimate questions, as you have asked of others. If you choose not to reply, or are unable to "articulate an argument" in response, up to you. That doesn't make other commentators automatically "trolls".

Sue - so the 'whole world around' you is based on the gay family model or the traditional one? Please, on this, a simple answer will do.

As for my questions, which you don't understand (apologies for that), let me re-phrase them thus: if a society normatively built around the traditional family model made you into who you are now, why then would you wish for future children to live in a society built around the gay family model? Are you unhappy with who you are and so you are blaming it on the traditional family model and wish for children to live in a different kind of family - whether gay, single-parent, foster, whatever? Or are you saying that all such types of family are the same in that they provide children with similar primary socialisation, coping strategies and life chances?

I am genuinely interested in this, so I hope my communication here is clear enough.

Oh wow! Did you not notice that most of my postings are in response to other people's comments on my first posting? I try my best to respond to people asking me and challenging my take on Gerber's article, and I am the troll now? You know what? I will now end posting comments in this thread. I hope that pleases you and all those who similarly would rather mob someone for their view rather than engage in rational debate. In parting, up yours (however you like it - and please feel free to report me for it, you have probably been impatiently waiting for an opportunity to do so).

I disagree,

marriage has long been disconnected from religious institutions.
Changing the law like you suggest would impose a change to the majority of the population (heterosexuals) on the grounds of the needs of a minority (homosexuals). This would indeed be a way how the changes might constitute a threat to Dana's (or anybody else's for that matter) civil rights.
And what happens to people already married?