God squad hot and bothered

Bonfire, your use of ‘normal’ when you mean ‘common’ is offensive in so many ways. Who gave you the final judgement on who can use fertility technology and who can’t? I note that you can’t justify why it’s not the ‘same for str8 and same-sex couples’.

Still pointing out all these paradoxes is in the end a nice little game that achieves nothing. Since the reality is that same-sex couples do have and are having kids. And that’s all that matters.

good point with the infertility v gene pool.

ooh unbeliever you got me there with your carefully phrased logic.

however give me twenty normal couples and twenty homosexual couples and im guessing im probably only going to see offspring from the normal couples.

morals have nothing to do with it. i knwo thats the way youre trying to phrase the argument because then you can cloak yourself in the persecuted poor me subculture needing protection category.

use turkey basters to your hearts content. but make sure the little darling knows thats how it was conceived.

i think that its a little sad though. accept ypur homosexuality and live your life, but if you want children the normal way then you might actually have to have normal intercourse.

some normal couples are infertile and thats sad as well. if they take advantage of technology good on them. i dont think that there situation is in any way the same as homosexuals wanting access to the technology.

i have doubts about ivf and infertility treatments in any case. some peopel shouldnt have kids. by constantly using science to allow the feeble to pass their genes on we weaken the gene pool overall. im not a eugenecist and i dont advocate clubbing feeble retarded children to death or anything, but i dont think we do these people any favours by creating or prolonging a life of pain and inequality just because science lets us.

oh yeah, there is no god.

oops.. moral high group = moral high ground

shab is right. Do you think gay animals choose to be gay given that there is little evidence of conciousness.

also look to the animal world for how much surrogate parenting goes on as well. I feel it is pretty natural.

So really If the urge is there it must be biological (as most urges are). and it must cause the poor bastards a world of confusion.

Bonfire, likewise …

all the heterosexual urges in the world will not produce offspring.. just ask any number of str8 folks who have to use fertility treatments and those otherwise unable to have children altogether.

The blatant assumption that homosexuality (the sexuality and not the sexual act) precludes procreation and the implication that heterosexuality necessarily and automatically leads to procreation is illogical and blatantly not true ,according to the experiences of a great many str8 couples.

So why is the use of fertility technology to procreate for some str8 couples inherently valid and somehow a ticket to the moral high group AND the use of social practices like co-parenting and surrogacy by same-sex couples seemingly invalid and deemed immoral?

Your logic is flawed.

I don’t know about that Thumper – take the two dykes and a turkey-baster example: the device got its filling through an act of masturbation by a third party male and the act of insemination could well be part of an intimate act between the aforementioned ladies…

“Why should homosexual urges and procreational urges be mutually exclusive?”

all the homsexual urges in the world will not produce offspring.

I guess that depends on whether you think homosexuality is a lifestyle choice, bonfire. May I suggest something as deeply rooted in the reptilian brain as sex is not a choice, but something that our biology imposes upon us. Much like our urge to procreate, one might say.

I don’t think there’s a question of anyone’s “commitment” to homosexuality. Why should homosexual urges and procreational urges be mutually exclusive? Biology is never a neat science.

Look, really, I am a religious man, and am not concerned what people do on the subject of gay rights. Yes, Corinthians has a bit to say against it, but that depends on the translation you use. Also, keep in mind that Paul is credited with writing it, and I suspect that he may have had a few issues himself.

In any case, it isn’t up to me to judge, so I wont.

VY – Nor the father.

Yup, You have to have a penis to be a father… Mmmm Looks down between legs, had a scratch, avd verified…. Yep. Have to have a penis.

Similarly, with the mother, you hav eto have boobs, and the lack of a penis… (Simply having it cut off doesn’t count)

“or is homosexuality just some phase you are going through”
Nice one,
Maybe if they get bashed a few more times by homophobes then they’ll snap out of this “phase”
Although bonfire, I agree with what you are saying about the type of parenting.
Plenty of f*cked up losers are raising children who will inevitably end up losers also – but they can still have their “right” to have children.
I don’t think anyone can really say that whether you are gay/straight or otherwise can determine whether you will be a good parent.

based on dysfunctional junior bogans which haunt all sectors of our society i dont think anyonce can say a homosexual couple woudl turn out a person who was not weel rounded. a lot depends on the type of parenting.

were dj maclaughlins parents stright, gay, divorced ? who knows – and he was a rolled gold villain and no net loss to our community in any way.

having said that i dont se why homosexuals seem to think that children are ‘a right’.

you choose to not have children when you choose to root another person of the same gender. simple biological fact.

if you choose to use other methods to obtain a child, such as two lesbians and a turkey baster, why are you trying to force your desires/lifestyle choice onto existing family models which have worked well for millennia ?

if the urge to have kids is so strong id question your committment to homosexuality – is it really who you are or is homosexuality just some phase you are going through ?

good. hopefully the same pressure can be applied to the libs stance on stem cell research funding.

The Libs at Federal level are backing down on the issue. They can see that if they are pig-headed about it, Humphries will lose his Senate spot.

I have often questioned whether a gay couple can raise a kid as well as hetro couple.. given that to be raised by two people of the same sex would not ness provide the right balance you get from both. But then my thought process kind of lends me to believe that given homosexual couples are biologically unable to concieve a child I suspect the lengths that they would have to go to in order to obtain a child is enough merit to say that at the very least they have the dedication. Given that it is so easy for hetro couples to have a child, I think this has to go in the homosexual couples favour.

Oh, and the start of the topic states that the god-squad has got their knickers in a twist. Just because the site is full of raving secularists doesn’t mean the wider world is.

VY, the problem is that kids are already being placed into that situation for real – Lesbians are asking for sperm donations (you can do a lot with a turkey baster) and divorced, widowed or otherwise single parents are getting into relationships with people of the same sex.

So the question is – now that kids are in the middle of relationships like that, what do we do with them?

I don’t think there’s been too much God bothering going on in this thread, other than a few people expressing some opinions about their view on the issue, with some info that supports their idea. Seems to me that there’s been a fair bit of bothering in bagging people out for not holding a popular, modern view.

The point that seems to be coming out, though, is that because gay couples don’t necessarily fit with the traditional western family model, some thought needs to be given as to whether we should:
a) try to fit the people involved into the traditional model, including the laws that surround it (parental rights, responsibilities, support arrangements, etc); or
b) altering the model in a legal sense to make it more flexible.

Snahon raises an interesting point regarding child support. Under the current laws, couldn’t an estranged lesbian parent deny all responsibility for child support given that she didn’t provide genetic input to the children in question? Who the hell knows, but a lot of this stuff needs to be sorted out before we put kids in this situation for real.

Alas, LurkerGal, some godbotherers seem to believe that, in addition to bothering god, they should bother their fellow man to behave the same way that they do.

As far as I can tell, some people think that religion is the last great bastion of prejudice – that you can use it to justify hating all kinds of people for no logical reason.

Others believe that it’s slightly more important to hold to the key tenet of the religion – love your neighbour as yourself. I know the one I like…

bonfire,
the “birth” mother is the only mother recognised by law, but the the other partner “mum #2” may still be the childs mother just as adopted parents are still “parents”

Same rights should also extend to same obligations IMHO 🙂

Shab – if they split up should the non-biological mother be legally bound to pay child support until the child is 18 ? – will she be entitiled to visitation rights ? – there are alot of legitimate issues surrounding that particular aspect of same sex partnerships that need a lot of thought given. As a society we have historically only ever had to deal with mum & dad. Having said that there are alot of other precendents to use a basis for formulating legal rules – IVF, etc…

I dont understand why the christians even need to comment on this. It is NONE of their business. When someone gets married in a church we non-christians don’t get all up in arms.

Why don’t they just mind their own business?

Bonfire/Berlina – they’re not the mother in a biological sense, no, but neither are a number of blokes who, never the less, are involved in the process of raising a kid with a woman.

Shouldn’t the non-biological parent in a same-sex have the same rights as a non-biological parent in a different-sex relationship?

Same sex partnerships and children is probably still too much of a heated debate to really have much commonsense involved but certainly with respect to access to other services that other partnerships have such as healthcare, taxation, divorce, rights of ownership, welfare, etc it really should be a no brainer…

bonfire and Vy – the other partner in a lesbian couple may not be the mother in a biological sense, but she is still a parent and deserves to be recognised as such. Is that such a stretch?

the four maon gospels which are the principle teachings of jesus of nazareth do not refer to homosexuality.

neither does the gospel of thomas.

letters to corinthians, like all early church writings needs to be viewed as a tool of control and as a political text of a jewish cult striving for popularity and to maintain its existence.

saul of tarsus is a dodgy character – i liken him to a former senior iraqi baathist who is trying to get by in todays iraq.

if you stick to the four major gospels to find hints of what jesus really thought you shoudl be ok. view all other new testament texts as not the word of god but of politicians.

Nor the father.

FC if two lesbians have a child, well only one of the lesbians can have a child – she is the childs mother. the other lesbian is not the mother.

Fair enough. As long as kids are kept well away, I’m not all that worried.

Oh, and I know a number of churches who aren’t that concerned about gays – they may not like what they do, but they don’t necessarily pass judgment for it. Seems reasonable to me.

I think the anti-gay thing gets another run in Corinthians. I gather the religious right are more fond of this one, because it’s in the new testament, and doesn’t have quite so many inconvenient references to utterly loony religious practices as Leviticus.

Any biblical scholars out there should feel free to contradict me.

First it is giving gay people the vote, next it will be o.k for women to drive. I’m moving back to Saudi Arabia.

I’m glad that the Australian Christian Lobby are spending their energy fixing the things that really matter.

VY, if marriage was an exclusively religions domain, then I’d be happy for it to be maintained by religious rules – and for gays marriage to be banned on that basis.

But it’s not – civil celebrants are doing a roaring trade every weekend, and they’re performing perfectly legal marriages.

Also, when you’re talking religion, you need to be a bit careful here. Not every religion hates the gays. Some are prepared to accept ’em – even embrace them. Yes, really. And not every gay hates religion – there’s a fair few who’s personal faith includes god, but just doens’t happen to include obscure bits of Leviticus (the same book, incidentally, that’s quite fond of wife beating and dietary codes, neither of which are considered to be core christian beliefs any more). And those churches and people want to bring god along with ’em to their ceremony. And why the heck not?

These people are an extreme form of Christians, there are many Christians that support legal recognition of same sex relationships, as well as doing all sorts of other great work (think the Uniting Church that runs the Metropolitan Community Church for gays and lesbians or the Wayside Chapel in Sydney that helps the down and out). I don’t think it’s fair to lump all Christians in with this crazy lot.

VY, same sex de facto relationships are NOT recognised for many important purposes – property rights, wills and estates, criminal law, blah blah blah, the list goes on and on.

Good call Thumper. Sane and sound arguments are more of what are needed in this debate. Let there be a lot more of such.

Vy -Homosexual relationships aren’t recognised my law.
For example, if two lesbians have a child (through a sperm donor) the mother that didn’t give birth to the child has no parental rights if the relationship breaks down.even if they have brought the child up for 10 years etc. Things like that is why ppl want “civil union”. Also, it is not something religous.

Sorry guys – busy day at the office…

I ONLY BELIEVE IN GAY MARRIAGE WHEN BOTH CHICKS ARE HOT.

Ahhhh, that’s better.

Seriously, though, I’m not sure why gay people are so worried about what is, in reality, a religious ceremony. The law recognises de facto relationships regardless of sexual orientation (I think). Isn’t that legal recognition? Let the religious folk do the religious ceremonies, let the non religious do whatever else.

As a married heterosexual male I don’t really spend that much time thinking about gay issues. That’s my right. Gay people can hassles the govt for legislation changes if they want. That’s their right.

taylor – only 4% of species don’t have some form of homosexuality. And we are part of other 96%.

Let them get married.. give them the full rights of anyone else.

Hey – We’re 14 comments into a gay rights debate and no word from VY?

Bit slow off the mark, old son.

“all evidence suggests that man and woman compliment each other in every sense of the word. just because technology or jon stanhope says we can change things, doesnt mean its ok. ”
All the legislation is going to do is RECOGNISE ppl’s relationships.
Its not about whether being gay is right or wrong, or whether gay couples can have children, JUST about their relationship being recognised.
It F*cken stupid that it is not already legalised. A complete embarrassment actually.
What the hell are the christian idiots going on about anyway, I think the sanctity of marriage was lost long ago anyway..
Maybe they think that if this goes through even one will all of a sudden become homosexuals and take over the world.

just because technology says we can change things, doesnt mean its ok

I was against the +3 Orbital Mind Control Laser of Gaydom from the start.

Next thing you know, we will be allowing the gays to vote.

I dislike fundamentalism and extremism whoever it comes from.

no possible argument to say you are wrong? whether you beleive we are relatives of the chimps or placed on earth by a higher power, all evidence suggests that man and woman compliment each other in every sense of the word. just because technology or jon stanhope says we can change things, doesnt mean its ok. i guess i am just saying that i dont think you are any more definitely right than the church is.

anyone who has these idiotic ideas I have no time for religious or not. anyone who has spiritual beliefs but is still open minded I have all the time in the world for.

but i am right,there is no possible logical argument that can say I am wrong.. there is no place for these exetremist religious morals in society.

bassman… yes that is my personal opinion.. which is deeply based in logic..it is to fight people who are unfit to have children from having them, which will improve the standard of living and also provide stem cell research specimens. Unlike the churches I have no power so anything I say in public has no real bearing… so get a grip mate 🙂

AD, do you lump every Christian person into this category?

Lesbians should be allowed to marry, as long as the wedding nuptials are broadcast live on the internet.

I don’t care what the poofs and lesbos do as long as they don’t adopt kids.

Sorry AD, who is the one with extreme views?? I seem to remember you mentioning mandatory under 25 abortions??

no seriously. Tell us what you really think, diane. Jezz. 🙂

fuck they are seriously a bunch of idiots. keep your fuckhead christian wank morals out of society there is no place for these lunatic idiotic arcahic ideals. man i hate these extremist cunts.