“SAME-SEX marriage creates a clash between upholding the human rights of children with respect to their coming into being and the family structure in which they will be reared, and the claims of homosexual adults who wish to marry a same-sex partner.
“It forces us to choose between giving priority to children’s rights or to homosexual adults’ claims.
“Opposite sex marriage does not raise this conflict, because children’s rights and adults’ claims with respect to marriage are consistent. I oppose discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and support legalising civil partnerships. But, I also believe that marriage should remain defined as being between a man and a woman.
“My reasons go to the nature of marriage as the societal institution that symbolises and protects the inherently reproductive relationship that exists between a man and a woman and, thereby, establishes children’s human rights regarding their biological origins and the family structure in which they are reared. . . .
“In conclusion, legalising same-sex marriage would be a very powerful statement against the horrible wrong of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. We clearly need such statements. But, in order to uphold the human rights of children, they should be made in other ways than legalising same-sex marriage.”
Excellent full article, It’s all about the children, not selfish adults
Australian-Canadian ethicist Margaret Somerville is Samuel Gale professor of law, professor in the faculty of medicine, and founding director of the Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law at McGill University, Montreal.
I have yet to receive a satisfactory answer to my question: Marriage: Why not a threesome? – And, “Yes” it is relevant. Polygamy is alive and well and if we allow same-sex couples the right to marrage why would we not approve of the love between polygamist familiy units the privilege of marraige?
See, Marriage: Why not a threesome? and Gay advocate: Don’t call it marriage and Definition of Marriage: Letter responses from Australian politicians; and Tasmanian Labour Conference backs same-sex marriage.
“Someone else’s child is not a ”cure” for infertility, and no one, whether gay, straight, single, married, young or old, should be entitled to such a child – despite current thinking to the contrary – especially when that child’s own human rights are ignored. The only circumstance in which this ought to happen is when the child has continuing contact with their donor parent.”
Read more: Our selfish creation of human life and I am grateful that in the circumstances Senator Wong and her partner are intending to do this for the IVF child her partner is carrying, Penny Wong and gay partner expecting baby.
Three, or more…. or even ONE?? For many years, when I was younger, I felt strongly that I wanted to be married. In such a case, why not let a single person “marry” him or her self? Oh, that’s right, because it’s not what marriage IS.
There is also a lot of deliberate MIS-information being promoted in this debate. When Peter Jensen raised the same concerns – that if we are to re-define marriage, then what’s to stop multiple marriage partners, or marrying relatives – the headline in the media was to the effect that “Archbishop of Sydney says same sex marriage will lead to incest and polygamy”!!
One of the great difficulties we face is a space with participants who will engage in courteous conversation and debate. Peter Costello had some interesting comments reported in August’s (not on line yet) edition of The Melbourne Anglican re the media’s agenda not being sympathetic to views that do not fit theirs.
The Bibe records that any relationships contrary to God’s order will bring judgement. The Bible also records that due to God’s grace through His gift of Jesus’s death and resurection all people can confess, change their ways and be forgiven. This choice is available for all people. Marriage one man to one woman is God’s creation plan. Homosexual relations are abhorent to Him as are incestious and poligimous ones. God is not happy with prostitution because people are enslaved against His created order and people pay to commit adultery. As children can only model their lives on adults closest to them, then fostering and adoptions (whether after birth or by surragosy) should be restricted to the Biblical model. Abortion (including the morning after pill) and euthenasia are murder. We have seised on smoking and now gambling as big addictions while few would argue that excessive alcohol intake is harmfull, however there are some elements in our society and government that argue that we should be legally able to mash our finelly balanced brains with other drugs. Any church that strays from these principals will be imediatly destroyed Spiritually and totally over time as people leave or they stray from Christ. Although legislation is government choice and democracy represents the whole community (although I am sure much notice is taken of minority groups and the silent majority ignored)the results affect the whole community. Our society suffers from wanting to do as we like at at the very time when the world’s population is increasing massively and we are directly affected by the actions of people everywhere. What God thinks matters, because He is our creator whether we believe in Him or not! Human rights, equality and respect for each other sound wonderful but rights come with awesome responsibilities. It is good to see the Anglican Church in Tasmania is following such a Biblical model. Unity of all Christian churches in these matters whould be great as such unity is the will of God expressed by Jesus shortly before His death.