(no subject)

[labellementeuse]

Did anyone see Face to Face with Kim Hill tonight?

I did. >.< Jesus, I REALLY CAN'T STAND Peter Dunne.

"The institute of marriage is about... children."
BULLSHIT!
If that's the case, why are you letting infertile men an/or women get married? Marriage is NOT about children.

"You don't need to [get married/have a civil union] to chose to live together... marriage doesn't make you love... more."
Sure. That's absolutely 100% true. No-one is saying that's not the case. THAT'S NOT WHAT THIS DEBATE IS ABOUT. This is about denying that homosexual couples are able to be acknowledged as having the same type of loving relationship as a straight couple can. because, in fact, <i>that</i> is what the insitute of marriage is about. Because you don't need to be married to have children. Marriage is about showing a commitment. By not allowing gay couples to show the same commitment, as whatsisface said, you're actually encouraging both the fact of and the perception of the promiscuity of gay man (lesbians were barly touched, though I thought whatsisface made a very good point when he said that gay men, promiscuous or otherwise, comprise only half the gay community; the other is lesbian women who are widely acknowledged, at least in New Zealand, to have very long-lasting relationships.)

I could go on and make the point that many straight couples devalue the institute of marriage (for example: Britney)... but I don't personally feel that kind of argument is a good one, because
-many of the people would say "You're right. We don't like them either."
-It's more of a counterargument and point-scoring than a good solid argument for.

Meh. Opinions? I'd love to have a fight with someone, so speak up, please.

Comments

[hifun55.livejournal.com]

Peter as in DD's husband??

Oh... sorry no fighting with me I agree!!

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

Nope. DD's husband is Peter Morwood. Peter here as in Peter Dunne, the leader of a United Future, a Christian Conservative Family Values-stle party. &%$&^%$!!

Heh, glad you agree. *thratens* everyone should agree with me!!!
No, no, I don't really mean that... much.

[miriamus.livejournal.com]

lol!!!! Well over the past few months I have moved, under my own steam and without the persuasion of anyone else, from the civil union to the marriage corner of the argument. And as for civil unions for straight couples and how they're supposed to be like marriage that's not quite marriage, what person who doesn't like marriage, the sort who thinks it's "just a piece of paper",is going to go through with something that's even more just a piece of paper? (being that it's something that doesn't have the cultural history that marriage does) So um thats all I have to say yeah. lol.

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

Well, civil unions are a legally binding act that show commitment without having what a lot of people might see as the baggage of marriage- specifically in many cases religion. Say, two different religions, or no religion (me. I personally would like a marriage ceremony- without, prtty much, all that God stuff. It's fien for the people who like it, of course.)

Yes. I'm with you. I think both civil union and marriage should be available for couples of whatever sort. Anything else is, I eel, discrimination. And that=bad. Derrrr.

[miriamus.livejournal.com]

I see your point about the civil unions... I was actually trying to say wouldn't it make more sense to just have marriage for everyone, but having both marriage and civil unions available for everyone DOES make more sense than marriage for straight couples and civil unions for homosexuals. Because that IS discrimination.

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

Yes. :D

[miriamus.livejournal.com]

Did you see the thing in the paper about prejudice against Muslims in Europe? I was even more shocked at that than I expected. Isuppose because it's Europe and they're supposed to be more liberal than other places....

[decado.livejournal.com]

Jesus, I REALLY CAN'T STAND Peter Dunne

Ahh the irony. :D

I won't try to argue with you on this one, but do you think homosexual couples should be allowed to adopt children?

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

*looks supicious* Why is that ironic?

Mmmmmm.... I'm not clear on this one. I don't think I have enough information, I'm not a child psychologist, etc. You'd have to present me with some convincing evidence that homosexual parents would be worse than straight parents, or solo parents, or divorced second marriages, or any of the other family types that we have in our society. (NB: I'm not criticising solo parents or divorce here: I know they are lots and lots of very capable solo parents, usually mums. I'm jsut saying that two parents are probably even better than one.)

[blueyeti.livejournal.com]

Be warned, repeated bad joke approaching:
A lesbian couple my family know just had a baby girl, named Maddie. My Dad's answer to the rather legitimate question of how Maddie's going to distinguish between Helen-Mum and Renee-Mum was 'Mum-Mum', which he thought was quite hillarious.

I think that the issues of gay parents is... Like I can talk, I'm not a child psychiatrist either. But I can't imagine that the actual upbringing of a child would be any more likely to be a dismal failure than with your average kid. One of the reasons why the average length of a serious relationship between gays is six years vs. the heterosexual 18 is the lack of children holding a couple/marriage together, so children have an advantage there. The problems really would start coming when the kid was about 12, especially if they're male and especially if they move schools at this age - it would probably be this age that the school teasing and bullying would start, but that's really got to do with individual circumstances.

I'm from divorced parents, and I didn't realise it at the time but it did really affect me. My sisters both were affected worse (my younger sister is 11, and she recently came up with a plan-type drawing for a house and had separate bedrooms for the mum and the dad), and it's an ongoing thing between both parents. I can't see how Maddie could possibly fare any worse than what a simple divorce at a quite young age does - Helen and Renee are extremely loving, great fun, and you can really see them as great parents.

So... Hmmm...

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

Yeah- good points.

My main problem with this line of thinking, that gay parents sure can't fuck it up mreo than straight parents, is that it's similar to the gay couples aren't sdegrading marriage because look what all the straight couples do to it line- although it's true, and it's clever, it's... kidna going at the issue sideways. the issue is not whether gay parents, in effect, are better than the worse straight parents, or whether gay couples are better than the worse straight couples (can we say "Britney" please?? ;))

To me, the argument is much stronger when it says that gay parents are just as good as any straight parents, the best gay parents as good as the best stright parents and the worst no worse than the straight worse- and ditto for marriages. Of coruse, marriage is much easier to argue because, well, I know a bit more about it.

[blueyeti.livejournal.com]

You can't go down the same tract for parenting as 'gay couples are just as good as straights at being married'. Because marriage is isolated, it only *really* has anything to do with the couple involved, whatever else the Church might want to put upon it. You can't say the same thing about the birth and growth of a child: a child's parents are the one's that raise it, give it values, ethics and a place in the world, but a child's environment is more complex than that. A child is influenced by schooling, teachers, other kids... a child of gay parents would recieve, in the average playgroup politics, a lot more shit than the average kid - this is something outside of the parent's control, it has nothing to do with them except their existance. So however good a gay couple might be at raising a child, the current social stigmas about it mean that it actually could end up being a negative environment for the child to grow up in, through no fault of anyone except the uneducated masses and bigoted minority. But a gay couple getting married can be just as good at married life as anyone else, the only social difference placed on them is like that placed upon an infertile couple.

So you really do have to go at the issue sideways, because looking at it direct doesn't actually address the issues associated with a gay couple raising a child. Everybody is different, but most people have the ability, at some point in their life to raise a child (badly or fantastically), so a gay couple might be the best people possible to have as parents, but if society will leave the kid alone (mentally - "I'm so different, but I'm sure Daddy loves Daddy as much as Sophie L's parents love each other" as well as social outcastn

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

Yeah, that's very true, and I guess one of the two major, er, "things" of this debate. One is the so-called psychological balance of having a male and a female rolemodel- and that's the one I, as a non-head-shrinker, am unwilling to take a stance on- and the social pressure one, which is I guess more within the range of comprehension and judgement than the other, mostly because it happens to all of us at one point or anotehr.
Except Jordan. But that's a whole new issue which I won't go into.
The social stigma... mmmm. I'm kinda soso on this. For me, my kindy teacher was gay, and although I now only remember her name (lisa) and a really strong positive feeling towards her, I guess this skews it for me a bit: my positive reaction towards her leaves me a bit sideways because I don't really think any of the kids had a problem with it. If we even knew. Past that age, of course, it's more of a deal... but then, I've been bullied and my parents have been together for 27 years. It's no guarantee. *sigh* Yeah, it's too hard for me to judge, I guess.

[blueyeti.livejournal.com]

I can't comment on the balance of female and male role models either (I have seriously considered becoming a head-shrinker though), although I can compare this to the single parent fad (of which there is no influence of one parent over the child, for whatever reason). The balance of role models for these children come from other sources - grandparents, friends, teachers - and they don't end up uberly fcuked (expect for a girl named Sharlene that I know, but that's just her).

The social stigma is definitely a reality, more so at different ages and in different environments. The ultimate age for bullying about gay parents (and probably about the kid being gay themselves) would be about 11-13, in the preteen fiasco. This is the age where kids are the most facinated, worldly and exploratory, before they gain any significant maturity. If the kid of gay parents got through the tween years, they'd probably be able to survive anything. The environment is another thing, although something which probably is already under control - a gay couple is unlikely to be living in a red-necked country town, because they would not be able to live there without discrimination, so therefore the kid would not be in a playground environment that has the classical extremes of bigotism. Which is most definitely a good thing. But if you were to send the kid to a religious school for example (I'm at a Catholic school, so I know the dogma), you would find people at the school who agreed with the Pope on the issue more than others, and so there would be individuals there who would not understand. (I'm bias, of course, and I wrote the Lj entry to which Connie was linking two days ago - on Friday I told my best fri

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

Well, bias almost goes without saying... almost anyone who's going to be debating this will have a natural bias, for whatever reason but probably a personal one, one way or the other. :)

And... yes, yes, yes and yes. :D When you're a headshrinker, if you do decide to be one, just confirm it all fior me then, will you?? ;)

[blueyeti.livejournal.com]

WHy the hell do my comments keep cutting out? I had another two paragraphs after this! *kills LJ and hotmail, for whatever part they have to play in this irritating, bad for communication, turn of events*

And the last two paragraphs were the best... I just can't remember what they said anymore...

At the end of that paragraph I said that I have proof of my best friend saying that people in denominational schools have a fiercer negative reaction to homosexuality, with the bias/proof coming from the fact that last Friday I came out of that nasty, caustrophobic closet to her.

The next paragraph was about childhood perceptions, which makes your wishy-washy statement about being positive towards Lisa be completely meaningless. The word 'gay' doesn't have any meaning for you as a child, not until you understand sexuality more, when you can start to understand about "different" sexuality (and even then you can't really - more proof: I can't understand heterosexuality, however much I'm bombarded with it from life and everywhere), so the only people who would have had objections to your gay teacher would have been parents and possibly the school body. If someone (say the child of gay parents) is brought up to a greater level of understanding then the word 'gay' will mean a lot more to them at a younger age; but to you and your classmates you barely distinguished between female and male then - boy and girl, yes, but not with adults, because they were primarily adults. And so the level of contact that a playground society has with the gay world, the better their reaction will be (so the kids who the child grew up with, if they had contact with the gay couple, would probably not give the child much shit at all, because they would be familiar with homosexuality and the individuals. In effect, the child would be fine through primary school, but if he/she moved in highschool they would have to start from scratch again).

(This is not as good as the original, I can tell...)

Another point (probably finally, because the ideas are lost to the stuffed up cyberspace! *sobsob*) is that the child ends up a bit more mentally messed up in adolescence than your average. A lot more tolerant, mature and understanding (because of the ignorance they are destined to run up against), but a lot more insecure about their own sexuality. The parents would have to have talks about 'it's okay if you're straight', because the desire to please and be like your parents is incredibly strong, so some children might want to be/pretend to be gay in order to please their parents, in the opposite to what a numder of gay kids do. I don't even know if I'm saying that as a negative or a positive... Positive in it's a greater level of understanding and questiong, a negative in the higher probability in upsetting your parents and so feeling angished about this and less security about your own place in the world.

That was about what I said before... I am sad, and am procrastinating. And shall go off to your journal to post the thing in full so it doesn't cut off again.

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

*groans* I hate that, especially when I think I've expressed myself well- as well as I usually do, anyway, which varies. My sympathies!!

Denominational schools- well, probably. I attend one, though I'm atheist, and I guess I can see that, though this particular school isn't all that religious- the difference would be more pronounced, I guess, at Catholic schools say. It also makes sense considering a strong part of many people's objections to homosexuality is on a religious basis.

Yeah, I see what you mean about primary vs high school. your last point, though, could partly be counterd by the fact that the family would pretty much have to be more open about sexuality than a straight-parent family. The kids couldn't be more insecure, and probably less, than the gay kdis growing up with straight parents in a mostly strgith world, than straight kids (or gay kids) growing up with gay parents in a bit more balanced world (would it be?).

[blueyeti.livejournal.com]

*kills hotmail and livejournal* I always think I've expressed myself well, when it actually turns out that I've just... expressed myself. Usually loudly. I used to people not listening unless I hold their head in place and tone down my volume, I'm not used to the net doing it for me.

Denominational schools not only gets in religious fanatics, but is more likely to get in hicks who are also religious fanatics (fanatics used in the losest, not true, sense of the word). People who are not from the 'open' suburbs closer to the city, people who came from the outskirts of the Sydney hinterland are more likely to be conventional that people living in a more influencial position. Denominational schools not only catch religious people, but people from a larger demographic - the people who lived at Campbelltown - because they do believe in the importance of a Catholic school.

Yes, a gay couple family would be far more open about sexuality in all accounts, what I was saying would probably not be the issue I considered it would be at all. Thanks for that perspective. Gay couple families would be far more open, far more talkative about all forms of sexuality than a 'normal, nuclear family'.

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

"used to people not listening unless I hold their head in place and tone down my volume..."
-it's gotten so that people tell me to shut up before I start saying anything. Sometimes they correct themselves out loud when they see me looking at them. I don't think I like it, but I can't do antyhing about it- especially as I don't usually express myself well verbally. I'm better on paper, or screen.

Mind you, at least I have never said that "People who vote National (right-wing party here) are generally less intelligent than others." Someone said that to me, but with Labour (left-wing) instead of National... *rages*

Ah, see, denominational schools here are a bit different. (whoops, almost said demoninational... freudian slip??) All private schools, round here anyway, are denominational. We also have a few Catholic schools that aren't private. But it means that if you go to a private school, which many parents prefer for their children (if they can afford it, or get a scholarship- I, the latter) you get a bit of religious education and prayers twice a week on the side. Of course Catholic private schools are more gung-ho about it. But anyway, what I was saying was you send your kid to a denominational school not always for the, well, denomination!

[blueyeti.livejournal.com]

Some teachers just sink their head in their hands when they see they've been landed with me in their class, and then quit a week later, needing years of therapy and a straightjacket...

I have never said that either. I was in the same room as someone as they said "My father could buy your whole family.", and a friend called out to the Prime Minister as he was going for his morning jog: "aren't you meant to be running the country, you facist?!" But personally, I haven't done anything like that either. Aren't we both so brilliant? *edgy eyes as I wait for someone to shoot me down for such an inaccurate statement*

Oh, I'm at a private school as well, and I think that most/all of our state schools are nondemoninational. We just have quite a lot of nondemoninational schools that are private/give scholarships more freely. So my little slice of Catholic Education doens't have everyone, but only those who are religious enough so that they'll scrape and save every last penny until they can send their kids to a good school that will give them values. Catholic schools are more 'gung-ho' about it all - you can't go there just for the privateness, you have to prove that the kid is baptised, being raised Catholic, and that the parents are also Catholic/Christian. My brother can't get into the school down the road because he's not baptised, we left the enrolement for longer than two days after his birth, and he's more likely to know what Buddha says rather than what the Pope says.