Arguments for "Yes" in the Same-sex Marriage Plebiscite?

>>8872445
Vote NO because:
>marriage is bad
>letting the left dictate the political agenda is bad
>letting the left thing it can get the LGBT vote by pandering like this instead of focusing on real issues is bad
>letting the left divide people into minorities who can be bought with targeted policies is bad
>the vote is a waste of money and the govt should be punished for holding it
>the vote is illegal (look it up) and the govt should be punished
>real equality is bigger issues than marriage
>civil unions should be here instead
>the federal government should stop trying to make decisions for the states
>the govt should focus on the big issues of today's world, not encouraging people to wave rainbow flags

>>8872464
That's a solid NO argument, but I'd like to see someone articulate a YES argument as well.
Thanks anyway

>>8872479
Each of those are separate and valid NO arguments.

I posted them because the four you listed weren't exactly great when it comes to understanding both sides.

>>8872445
Out of curiosity I briefly looked up Australia's current laws. It looks like they basically gained the legal equivalent of marriage in the Civil Union Act 2012, so I'm not exactly sure what there is to gain other than a feeling of social acceptance

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/assembly-passes-civil-unions-reforms-20120822-24n0u.html
>Attorney-General Simon Corbell's bill will restore the role of ceremonies and celebrants in civil unions and give same-sex couples the same rights as people married under the Marriage Act.

I may be missing part of the picture though

>>8872506
Thanks for the follow-up. I'm really trying to get someone to articulate a YES argument though

>>8872518
It's not called marriage is the problem they have.

All unions between consenting adult humans is totally fine. The government has no right to tell the church what to do or accept. SSM act is Islamophobic, Christophobic, and anti-semitic. It paints religious and traditionalists as evil devils who just want to see gays and alternative genders get killed. It leverages the trans suicide rate to say the "lgbt community" has a wildly high suicide rate. The MEA won't even affect trans people and it's not about trans acceptance.

Fuck the MEA

>>8872445
>marriage is good
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rc_NNjV0s1o
>there are gay republicans who wants to get married
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfZsSpK2XNw
>Not required to be a democrat or a leftie to vote for gay marriage
>civil unions are not recognized in other countries
>civil unions are not recognized by other states
>you won't be recognized as a family if you're not married
>you're not allowed to take care of your partner in the hospital if he's hospitalized
>if your insurance is from work, you're not allowed to add your partner in the insurance
>inb4 muh starving children in africa

>>8872558
I forgot to add:
>You're not required to be married in a church to get married.

File: GayAustralians.png (207KB, 1290x948px) Image search: [Google]

207KB, 1290x948px

>>8872445
One legal system for all parties involved so the children of gay couples are treated equally to those of straight couples.

Estimated 10k gay couples with children in Australia right now.

Civil unions have different requirements per state. I can enter into de facto relationships but those appear to REQUIRE children and the rules vary by state. If I move, my de facto partnership is dissolved, whereas a marriage is federal law and accepted in all Australian states.

De facto partnerships are not recognized abroad, and if I am gay and my partner or child dies abroad, not being married will complicate matters.

Essentially there is no good argument for having two separate legal systems, one with widely variable rules in each separate state, one with consistent federal rules for gays vs straight couples with children, unless you are arguing the children of gays are less deservingly of being held to the same legalities as that of straight couples.

Separate but equal is inherently unequal.

Also:

https://www.humanrights.gov.au/publications/stories-discrimination

https://www.ipsos.com/en-au/seven-ten-back-same-sex-marriage-legislation-fairfax-ipsos-poll

http://www.roymorgan.com/findings/6263-exactly-how-many-australians-are-gay-december-2014-201506020136

Australia already includes sexuality in its anti-discrimination laws:

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2013/08/02/australia-lgbt-and-intersex-anti-discrimination-laws-come-into-effect/

http://archive.is/dgdqR

HIV is declining for the majority of White Australian gay men:

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/health-problems/hiv-infections-in-nsw-have-fallen-to-their-lowest-levels-except-for-one-group-of-people/news-story/9dc7261df2978e0091ad6739ff106d43

http://archive.is/Qdllj

>>8872558
>democrat
Clearly didn't even comprehend OP.

>>8872595

I actually agree with this post 100% and I would like to see a one system of recognising unions. What I actually want is for marriage to have a purely governmental definition. One entirely removed from the religious ceremonies that join people.

>>8872610
Then support gay marriage and support priests who don't want to conduct gay marriages in their churches.

>>8872606
>I have nothing to add in the conversation
fix'd

>>8872634
>implying your lack of comprehension isn't very relevant to your post

>>8872637
(You)

>>8872610
IIRC Australia has a law that all marriages must somehow check a box that they are associated with some religion of some sort but they still allow civil marriage.

That said, the marriage law excludes religious exemptions for churches and priests but NOT for public accommodations that would want to refuse service to gays who want items for their marriage (cakes, florists, photographers) so that's controversial.

If you look at the actual marriage data, you can see that since 2011 the amount of straight married couples choosing to use religious ministers to officiate their weddings was a MAJORITY back in 2010 or so but now is a minority, and most celebrants, straight of course, currently choose secular civil marriage in Australia so religious marriage is less of an argument.
>>8872630
There is nobody proposing priests or churches in Australia should be forced to conduct gay marriage. Australia explicitly includes federal religious and state separation language in its constitution.

Saying religious gay marriage is a fear is not realistic. No proposed version of the law so far has included anything about gay religious marriage and the current versions all include explicit religious exemptions for churches and priests.

http://mspgh.unimelb.edu.au/centres-institutes/centre-for-health-equity/research-group/jack-brockhoff-child-health-wellbeing-program/research/impact-of-a-changing-world-on-childrens-lives/the-australian-study-of-child-health-in-same-sex-families-achess

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/mf/3310.0

>>8872637
Fuck it. I'll bite.

How? Voting for gay marriage doesn't require you to be in a political political group. That's all I said.

>>8872595
>unless you are arguing the children of gays are less deservingly of being held to the same legalities as that of straight couples.
> bringing children into the marriage question

Alright, here we go...

Don't the children of gays have a right to both a mother and a father?

>>8872445
Marriage (in burgerland at least) gives spouses special rights, if the government allows only heterosexuals those special rights that is unequal treatment under the law.

Personally I think govt should get out of the marriage business completely and make citizens keep a will once they are adults (which they then update of they enter into unions, relationships, religious marriages, whatever), but as long as the govt is in the marriage business they are obligated not to discriminate against the gays

>>8872669
How is that a positive argument?

>>8872678
Why is that necessary for the health and happiness of the child? Burden of proof is on you to explain how it is.

http://whatweknow.law.columbia.edu/topics/lgbt-equality/what-does-the-scholarly-research-say-about-the-wellbeing-of-children-with-gay-or-lesbian-parents/

www.asanet.org/documents/ASA/pdfs/12-144_307_Amicus_%20(C_%20Gottlieb)_ASA_Same-Sex_Marriage.pdf

Farr, R. H. (2017). Does parental sexual orientation matter? A longitudinal follow-up of adoptive families with school-age children. Developmental Psychology, 53(2), 252-264.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/dev0000228

http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Patterson-Farr-Forssell-AppliedDevScience-Jul-2010.pdf

https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2458-14-635

How Does the Gender of Parents Matter?

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2009.00678.x/abstract?deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=userIsAuthenticated=false

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/131/4/e1374

http://www.ibtimes.com/study-having-gay-parents-does-not-affect-childs-gender-identity-2579343

>>8872678
>Don't the children of gays have a right to both a mother and a father?
no? I'm not exactly sure why asshats like you would always rather kids be in orphanages than in the safe and legally secure care of a single adult or same sex pair?

>>8872669
The Democrats don't organize in Australia or other places outside of the USA.

Your answer made it obvious you had no knowledge of the specifics of OP.

>>8872684
>no? I'm not exactly sure why asshats like you would always rather kids be in orphanages than in the safe and legally secure care of a single adult or same sex pair?

> muh black-and-white fallacy

Last time I checked, there wasn't exactly a shortage of straight parents who want to adopt

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-04-21/sammut-our-reluctance-towards-adoption-is-hurting-children/6409484

>>8872690
>Last time I checked, there wasn't exactly a shortage of straight parents who want to adopt
retard

>>8872680
It's not positive or negative. Just like walking or standing. I'm just saying if you're a part of a certain group, you don't have to vote against gay marriage.

>>8872685
I also said 'or a leftie' and 'not required to be'.

Thanks for making it known that you're the one who doesn't read.

>>8872684

Well another point here that is relevant is that in a majority of states Australian gay couples can already adopt. I think Northern Territories is the only outlier on this. So you already have 10k Australian gay couples with kids, the question is will their children be held to the same or different legal standard because their parents are attracted to the same sex.

It is not like the United States where legalizing gay marriage also legalized gay adoption in the 13 states where gay marriage was at the time prohibited.

https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/queensland/samesex-couples-to-be-allowed-to-adopt-in-queensland-20160806-gqmhsx.html

File: fuck_off.jpg (18KB, 320x320px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 320x320px

>>8872693

Queensland is one of the last Australian jurisdictions to move forward with these reforms, with New South Wales, Victoria, the ACT and Western Australia already having made changes.

File: least_intelligent_comment.png (21KB, 263x200px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 263x200px

>>8872695
>It's not positive or negative. Just like walking or standing. I'm just saying if you're a part of a certain group, you don't have to vote against gay marriage.

You have no idea what a positive argument is, please fuck off.

>>8872698
>I'm going to be retarded and nothing is going to stop me
I guess I'll have to stop giving you the responses you crave. Call it victory if you must

Another argument is about the social prestige and dignity of being able to call yourself married. Why does being same-sex attracted mean you should be prohibited from that status with people you love and are intimate with. Gays are not attracted to the opposite sex so claiming that everyone has the right to opposite sex marriage is not an argument when the data shows gay men are not aroused by women at all and that kids raised in those marriages do worse when the marriages inevitably dissolve (Regnerus, Sullins). Both of those studies looked at opposite sex pairings with kids where one partner ended up later coming out as gay and the results in terms of how the kids fared were poor. If there is research, albeit with a convenience sample, that kids of gays do the same or better, why should same-sex attracted people be resigned to opposite sex marriage?

File: 1395004637755.jpg (76KB, 625x626px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 625x626px

>>8872700
>not being required is not a positive argument

>>8872552
>It leverages the trans suicide rate to say the "lgbt community" has a wildly high suicide rate. The MEA won't even affect trans people and it's not about trans acceptance.
As a trans women this is very insulting. How dare they claim my name for their agenda this way?

>>8872682
This is the strongest point of the argument.
My concern is that I've read a lot of material — not peer-reviewed, mind — that suggests repression of reports of negative outcomes for children of homosexuals.

For example, the author of this piece was eviscerated by the gay community:
http://thefederalist.com/2015/03/17/dear-gay-community-your-kids-are-hurting/

And Robert Oscar Lopez has been hounded by LGBT activists for years:
http://catholicexchange.com/same-sex-parenting-child-abuse

I know personally how much of a bubble academia can be, so it's a tricky one for me — I always prefer to go with the numbers and experts, but I'm suspicious because the topic as also very politicised.

>>8872679
>but as long as the govt is in the marriage business they are obligated not to discriminate against the gays

What's your take on polygamous marriage?

File: RegnerusFlawed.png (154KB, 640x1136px) Image search: [Google]

154KB, 640x1136px

>>8872724
So you claim that negative results are being suppressed but have no actual evidence for this claim?

Anecdotal evidence from kids raised in gay marriages who didn't like how their parents raised them is not generalizable evidence against allowing gays to marry.

The second article mostly cites anecdotal evidence but also Regnerus, who researched 248 or so kids raised by at least one parent who identified as gay or lesbian (according to their child). The problem is not all the parents who were gay actually lived with their children. 1/3 of the sample claiming to be raised by gay parents never actually lived with their gay parents and only 2 of the kids in the study were actually raised by planned gay families as opposed to straight families where one partner was (secretly I would assume at first) gay.

88 out of 248 of the respondents that were counted as "Parents are of the same sex" responded that their parents were never in a same sex relationship while they were living with them though they had same sex relationships while they were growing up, ie their parents divorced and they ended up with the straight parent but they were still counted as having parents of the same sex

Source
>http://www.prc.utexas.edu/nfss/documents/NFSS-study-design.pdf
>a. Parents are of the same sex
219 active and 29 withdrawn panelists, from Page 3
>http://www.prc.utexas.edu/nfss/documents/NFSS-codebook.pdf
>S8 Did you ever live with your mother while she was in a romantic relationship with another woman?
40 said no, from Page 4
>S9 Did you ever live with your father while he was in a romantic relationship with another man?
48 said no, from Page 4
Yes, that is the official study results

http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/ICPSR/studies/34392

>>8872744
Thanks for the links

>>8872729
Isn't that a right wing issue? :^)

File: stupid_you_her.jpg (22KB, 400x302px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 400x302px

>>8872811
>Isn't that a right wing issue? :^)
> I ask about a specific question without getting into Left vs Right
> mfw when some assclown think "right-wing issue" is an edgy comment

>>8872744
>So you claim that negative results are being suppressed but have no actual evidence for this claim?

Have you ever voiced a politically incorrect opinion on a college campus?

>Anecdotal evidence from kids raised in gay marriages who didn't like how their parents raised them is not generalizable evidence against allowing gays to marry.

Yes, I know. Thank you for pointing out the obvious.

>The second article mostly cites anecdotal evidence but also Regnerus, who researched 248 or so kids raised by at least one parent who identified as gay or lesbian (according to their child). The problem is not all the parents who were gay actually lived with their children. 1/3 of the sample claiming to be raised by gay parents never actually lived with their gay parents and only 2 of the kids in the study were actually raised by planned gay families as opposed to straight families where one partner was (secretly I would assume at first) gay.

The fact that in a sample population of 15,000 he could find only two kids who were raised in Gold Standard LGBT families is the point of his study. Highly unstable families are not in the children's best interests.

>88 out of 248 of the respondents that were counted as "Parents are of the same sex" responded that their parents were never in a same sex relationship while they were living with them though they had same sex relationships while they were growing up, ie their parents divorced and they ended up with the straight parent but they were still counted as having parents of the same sex

Why did the straight parents get custody? Doesn't that suggest the non-straight parents were deemed less fit?

How long do homosexual couples stay together as compared to straight couples?

>>8872847
Well the issue is more than he asked people who by now are 40 about their childhoods so the data looks back to a point when gays were legally restricted from state or federally recognized unions in many places.

Other researchers have found very different results. There is no data yet comparing planned gay and straight families at representative sample sizes with random sampling techniques.

This indicates that 2/3 of the time the gay parent got custody. It is hard to know exactly what happened in each case because all we have is a small dataset, not a complete picture of each respondent's childhood. Likely consistent with other studies we are looking at a mix of lesbian women who raised their kids either alone or with a lesbian partner (study has no details) and gay men who had kids and then left the marriage as they were unhappy and females typically get custody.

The single parent category allows remarried couples to enter into it. So basically we are mostly looking at the effects of divorce and single parenthood on raising kids, confounded with the variable of sexuality. All the more argument for allowing marriage.

In a California study based on a 2003 random sample telephone survey, 37%-46% of gay men compared to 51%-62% of lesbians and 62% of heterosexuals were found to be engaged in cohabitation if some kind.[1] In a 2011 study by The Williams Institute of US States that provide marriage demographic statistics,[2] a number of findings on legalized homosexal relationships were published, including:

Same sex couples seek to marry at about the same rate as heterosexual couples.
62% of same sex couples who entered into a formally recognised relationship were female.
The average annual dissolution rate was about 1% for homosexual couples versus 2% for heterosexual couples, but about 50% for both over time.

When asked about their love lives, gays were more likely to have long term relationships. In fact, 59% had been in a stable, loving relationship for three or more years. They were very committed to their significant others and reported high levels of joy in their lives. Only 19% admitted to cheating on a loved one, which is much lower than the national average.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/disturbed/201311/gay-relationships-can-be-more-stable-straight-ones

>>8872863
>59% had been in a stable, loving relationship for three or more years

What the hell kind of standard is that?

>>8872867
We honestly do not have great data on how long marriages that have existed for 2 years legally at a federal standard will last. I'm giving you what we have, and the data is thin.

>>8872860
>Well the issue is more than he asked people who by now are 40 about their childhoods so the data looks back to a point when gays were legally restricted from state or federally recognized unions in many places.

Isn't it insulting to say that homosexual couples didn't stay together because they didn't have a piece of paper from the government?

>Other researchers have found very different results. There is no data yet comparing planned gay and straight families at representative sample sizes with random sampling techniques.

It's a shame about that.

>The single parent category allows remarried couples to enter into it. So basically we are mostly looking at the effects of divorce and single parenthood on raising kids, confounded with the variable of sexuality. All the more argument for allowing marriage.

If the point Regnerus is making is that homosexual relationships are more unstable, then allowing gay marriage with no-fault divorce won't make a difference.

>In a California study based on a 2003 random sample telephone survey, 37%-46% of gay men compared to 51%-62% of lesbians and 62% of heterosexuals were found to be engaged in cohabitation if some kind.[1]

I was asking about the stability and longevity of the relationship, not whether people were shacking up.

In a 2011 study by The Williams Institute of US States that provide marriage demographic statistics,[2] a number of findings on legalized homosexal relationships were published, including:
>
>Same sex couples seek to marry at about the same rate as heterosexual couples.
>62% of same sex couples who entered into a formally recognised relationship were female.
>The average annual dissolution rate was about 1% for homosexual couples versus 2% for heterosexual couples, but about 50% for both over time.

What does "over time" mean? 10 years? 20 years? 50 years?

>>8872880
http://web.stanford.edu/~mrosenfe/Rosenfeld_Couple_Longevity_Forthcoming_JMF.pdf

Here found a study of length of gay relationships. Reading it now.

>>8872890
Cool, checking it out too

>>8872894
Balsam et al (2008) followed a cohort of same-sex couples who obtained civil unions in Vermont, matched to comparison groups. Over 3 years, the same-sex couples without civil unions had the highest rate of break-up (9.3%), followed by same-sex couples with civil unions (3.8%) and heterosexual married couples (2.7%).

File: Screen Shot 2017-09-16 at 4.40.19 AM.png (381KB, 2276x1374px) Image search: [Google]

381KB, 2276x1374px

>>8872445

File: GayRelationshipLength.png (243KB, 1968x1282px) Image search: [Google]

243KB, 1968x1282px

>>8872948
from doi:

10.1111/jomf.12141

>>8872729
As long as government is in the marriage business they have an obligation not to discriminate

Really though marriage is a cultural thing, government shouldn't be enforcing cultural norms

>>8872991
Government is responsible for handing matters of taxation, custody, and guardianship for children.