For and against gay marriage

As I said in the previous post, to me the YES case in the same-sex marriage postal vote is largely based on love, acceptance and justice, while the NO case is largely based on fear, exclusion and poor logic. Much of the NO campaign is attempting to shift the focus from whether two people of the same-sex should be allowed to marry, by attempting to make people afraid of the potential consequences of marriage equality.

There is little credible evidence that children of same-sex couples are worse off than children of heterosexual couples. Inthe Australian Institute of Family Studies a very credible research and policy body with no vested interests found that:. Overall, research to date considerably challenges the point of view that same-sex parented families are harmful to children.

Children in such families do as well emotionally, socially and educationally as their peers from heterosexual couple families. But regardless of this, the reality is that same-sex couples can already legally have children by birth or adoption and this is unlikely to change.

If we want the best for children; which is better? That these families of same-sex couples have the same recognition as other families, or that their families be considered flawed and their parents denied the same recognition as other couples? Some of my friends on Facebook have shared or liked a post that asks amongst others the following questions about same-sex marriage:.

Same-sex marriage is not going to change the ability of same-sex couples to have children. If people believe that children should have their mum and dad would they also advocate for the banning of divorce? Do they believe that a woman in a violent relationship should stay in the marriage for the sake of the children?

There are many situations for and against gay marriage children do not live with their natural birth parents. Maybe that is not the ideal, but it is reality, and many, many children still thrive because of a loving, nurturing environment. What is most important to children is that they are raised in a stable environment with love and support.

The structure of the family is far less important. There is no doubt that the children of a loving, stable same-sex couple are better off than children of a heterosexual couple where there are high levels of conflict, instability and inconsistency.

User LawannaFlier

My experience suggests that the public commitment of marriage can help with stability of a relationship, so I want children of same-sex couples to have the same support. I accept there are legitimate concerns about religious freedom and that there are complicated dilemmas involved.

At the moment ministers and priests do not have the religious freedom to marry same-sex couples, and same-sex couples do not have the religious freedom to be married before God and the State, but these are not the religious freedoms opponents of marriage equality are concerned about.

There are no serious calls for churches to be forced to conduct same-sex marriages. While I hope churches show the love and acceptance they often preach and will be happy to give their blessing for and against gay marriage same-sex marriages, I do not believe they should be forced to.

I do think it is complicated and it is not a clear cut issue. How far should religious freedoms go? Should religious groups be above the law? Should we allow the killing of adulterers because of a narrow reading of the Bible or Koran? Should pacifists be able to refuse military service or to pay taxes towards the military because of their religious views?

Should people be allowed to discriminate against Jews because of religious beliefs? Clearly there are limits to religious freedoms and there will be grey areas. But religious freedom is a separate issue to marriage equality. We need to explore how we can protect both.

Unfortunately, the current debate has been quite polarising and has not be conducive to compassionate dialogue where we can calmly discuss the issues involved. Both questions should have been decided at the same time through parliamentary processes. The Safe Schools debate is a red herring.