Media Release: Victorian ‘gay adoption’ law discriminates against kids

gay-adoptionVictorian Government wants 'equality' for gay adults, but 'inequality' for adopted kids.

Premier Daniel Andrews told Melbourne’s Midsumma Parade this year that “equality is not negotiable” for his Labor government. “But equality is clearly negotiable in Victoria, and some Victorians are clearly more equal than others”, said Dr David van Gend, a GP and President of the Australian Marriage Forum.

“Premier Andrews’ decision to let homosexual couples adopt a stranger’s child shows that Labor considers the emotional needs of gay adults to be ‘more equal’ than the emotional needs of kids.

“The equal right and deep need of a child to have both a mother and father in her life is being negotiated away so that gay couples can have the ‘equal right’ to adoption.

“Has the Premier not read the largest, most recent study of same-sex parenting (Sullins, 2015) which found a significant increase in serious emotional problems for kids raised in same-sex households? Does he know nothing of the importance of both a mother’s and father’s input into the normal emotional development of a child?

“So few children are up for adoption, and so many thousands of infertile married couples are longing to adopt. All else being equal, what possible justification could there be for government to deny a child the mother and father relationship she needs and instead place the child with two unknown men?

“Trivial slogans about ‘all you need is a loving couple’ cannot justify subjecting adopted children to a prolonged experiment on their emotional development”, Dr van Gend said.


“And with Premier Andrews’ refusal to let faith-based adoption agencies continue to do their good work of placing children with a mother and father figure, he is showing his totalitarian streak", Dr van Gend said.

“He knows that faith-based adoption agencies in several states in America and across the United Kingdom have had to close once they were required to place children equally with homosexual couples.

“The Victorian Labor government will bully faith-based adoption agencies to act against what they consider to be the child’s best interest, or be shut down”.


“All government policy, State and Federal, must put the interests and rights of the child first – not the interests of homosexual adults.

“That means no law can be passed, or allowed to stand, that deliberately deprives a child of their relationship with a mother or father.

“That rules out adoption and surrogacy for single people, or for same-sex couples. Above all it rules out a federal law for same-sex ‘marriage’, which would overrule the remaining State prohibitions against same-sex adoption and surrogacy: it would become a nationwide, permanent violation of a child’s birth-right to have, where possible, both a mother and father in her life”, Dr van Gend said.


“No government, state or federal, should allow spurious adult demands for “equality” to overrule authentic equality for children – their equal right and deep need to know the love of both mother and father, even where that is an adopting mother and father”, Dr van Gend concluded.

Share Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Follow us Facebooktwitterrssyoutube

31 Responses

  1. This is proof that marriage and adoption are not inextricably related, and that the former won’t lead to the latter. Same-sex marriage is not legal, but gay adoption is about to become so in Victoria. The reason is simple: Marriage laws are federal laws, but adoption laws are state laws that the federal government does not have the power to override. David was wrong when he claimed in the debate with Rodney Croome that state prohibitions will be overturned by a federal same-sex marriage law.

    By the way, same-sex adoption is a pro-child policy. Having a greater pool of suitable candidates is good for children, because there is a greater opportunity to find them loving homes. It doesn’t mean that any gay couple will automatically be able to adopt a child. If they would be happiest with a straight couple, they should be placed with them, and they will be. But if the best option is a gay couple (and it sometimes is), then it would be an injustice to the child not to place them with the gay couple.

    • sam

      No child should be placed into a homosexual environment. What a grave discrimination which highlights the selfishness of same sex couples who cant accept they surrender their rights to have kids when they pursue selfish homosexual relations.

      • Selfish? You do realize there have been many cases where extremely endangered and vulnerable children have been adopted and rescued by same-sex couples, who then grow up happy and loved?

        Why should gay people do? Force themselves to be with someone of the opposite sex? What effect might that have on them, their partners and their children? Is that good for them, or will they all be miserable?

        You do realize that adoption is a case-by-case basis, where every child is adopted according to what they need, right? It is a very rigorous process. Read “Too High A Price: The Case Against Restricting Gay Parenting” by the American Civil Liberties Union. American gay equality activist Jeremy Hooper has an adopted daughter. He and his husband were chosen over 30 straight couples.

        Nor have you answered my point that marriage equality will not cause same-sex adoption to be legalized.

        • Ash

          It is a lie to call same-sex adoption a pro-child policy. The evidence is soundly against such an assertion. There is an adequate pool of candidates for adoption without same-sex couples. The notion that children are ‘rescued’ by same-sex couples is fanciful inasmuch as these same children can be placed with loving heterosexual couples without the disadvantages outlined in past social science studies on same-sex parenting. The fact that children grow up well in a same-sex environment is more of a reflection of resilience on the part of the child than it is the moral virtues of the ‘parents’.

          What should gay people do? Accept their choice to be gay and leave children, who are the natural offspring of a heterosexual union, alone. Marriage for same-sex couples may not imply legal same-sex adoption, but there is little in the way of such a logical progression of hedonistic desires to be pursued in the legal system.

          • As soon as you admitted that the children of gay parents do as well, your case fell apart.

        • Nick: I will answer you. Life is not about being fair. “Being miserable” is not a crime. The majority of homosexuals are people who tried a lot of different porn and as the bible nails – they become depraved. This is not an opinion. There are many people who believe that they are gay because things went wrong when they were young. Man-on-man sex is violent and repulsive to children and they should never be subjected to it. Its a sad day when Russia does more to protect the morality of her children that the west does.

          ps I note that you repond to many of the posts from AMF if not all of them. This is a typical miitant homosexual stand. Follow the perceived enemy around until you find something “juicy” to shame them with. And you always will, because no Christian or upstanding citizen WANTS to think about this disgusting topic. It is pushed in our faces every day under the guise of “love” or “rainbows”. The fact is most of us are so jaded by now we just give up – go do you lifestyle (and that is all it is) somewhere else, but leave our CHILDREN alone.

          • Wow. That’s what you think about gay people? Yet somehow we are the uncivil side?

            There’s not much point trying to refute what you said about gay people or why they are gay, or your support for Russia’s horrible laws, other than to say that you are completely wrong, because I know I can’t convince you. But how do you think children will be subjected to gay sex? Do gay parents force their kids to watch them have sex? I agree that they shouldn’t, just like straight couples, but I’m not quite sure why you think children are going to be seeing it.

            And yes, I am going to respond to the AMF’s post. I will stand up and defend gay people against prejudice. And on that note, AMF is now attacking the Safe Schools program, which is trying to save lives. This goes to show that opposition to same-sex marriage rarely seems to be limited to that, and is often associated with a deeper anti-gay prejudice. I agree that some of the material would be inappropriate for distribution at a school, but that’s not what the program does. It leaves the distribution up to the judgement of the start.

            Nor have I seen, from you or Sam, a refutation of my original point.

        • You assume all people whom have had a homosexual experience want to be in a same-sex relationship which is not true. I was 9 yrs old at a public primary school when a girlfriend wanted me to be more than friends. This had a significant impact on my relationships with guys in both primary school and high school as I wouldn’t date any of them. I met a couple whom had got out of the “gay life-style” by giving their life to Christ. I have been happily married for 17 1/2 yrs with 3 biological children. I have a gay friend who was never gay in primary or high school, and he was very popular with both girls and guys. He even told me last year that he liked a particular girl at high school. He became gay at 31yrs old when he lived in a country which allowed same-sex marriage. He left his female partner and child, and is now currently living with a man whom has left his wife and children. The Japanese only recognise the practice of homosexual behaviours (anal and oral sex) which can be practiced by same-sex and heterosexual couples. They don’t recognise sexual orientation. These sexual behaviours (anal and oral sex) are extremely addictive, and are more pleasure for self than the other person. The Guardian reported this year that married men were using prostitutes for oral sex because their wives were refusing to practice this sexual behaviour. These sexual behaviours make people fantasise about being with other people, and explains the reasons for same-sex couples having experienced multiple relationships, and is quite commonly used in pornography.

          • “You assume all people whom have had a homosexual experience want to be in a same-sex relationship…”

            No I’m not. I’m saying that people who don’t want to be forced into an opposite-sex relationship shouldn’t have to be. Sam seems to think gay relationships are selfish. My point is: what’s the alternative? A relationship in which everyone will be miserable?

    • It is extremely difficult to adopt in Victoria. Especially if you are single. Fostering also requires extensive interviewing and vetting. This causes stress in couples and individuals who feel called to adopt. This move – which rushes through thousands of adoptions (to be given a child-permanently) for gays – being announced at a militant homosexual “festival” is extreme and very odd. Coupled with the closing down of religious instruction in Victorian schools this is an outright anti-Christian anti-God and anti-God move by Daniel Andrews. A lot of men nowadays love to exercise their free will by prancing about and wearing ladies clothes – and selecting these people to permanently care for our kids is just insane. Way to go Victorian Labor – way to go….a political stunt which will detrimentally affect thousands upon thousands of children, for a few votes right now, from men who – lets be honest – put their own jollies ahead of childrens’ welfare.

      • You do know adoption is a case by case basis, right? Just because gay adoption is legal, does not mean unsuitable gay couples will be allowed to do it. They will have to demonstrate that they can care for children appropriately.

        By the way, your religion does not get to dictate our laws. I don’t claim to be persecuted when atheism doesn’t dictate laws either, as should be the case. That’s what secularism is: religious neutrality. Daniel Andrews is actually a devout Catholic, but he understands this.

  2. In a previous comment, I wrote:

    “It leaves the distribution up to the judgement of the start.”

    “Start” should have been “staff”.

  3. Nick hi
    Nick your time commitment to being a self appointed watchdog for the gay lobby on the AMF posts is interesting. You could save yourself some valuable time however if you found a true bone of prejudice against which to grind your teeth. From a previous post of yours, AMF readers are aware that your eagerness to defend gays against perceived prejudice is influenced at least in part by your own sexual orientation. This being your passion and indeed your right it is not a safeguard against wrong mindedness. It does however place your objectivity on notice. (Though I believe, your comments are not all devoid of attempted balance.)
    You state your intent as a defender of gays and gay rights and in this place against the prejudice you believe is being promoted by AMF and it’s respondents. AMF is newly founded and founded to defend the rights of children and what has been traditionally conceived as the best nurturing ground for children…family established by the child’s mother and father. If gay lobbyists were not aggressively promoting the perpetuation and extension of the sexual revolution, the end goal being the acceptance of the gay lifestyle and all it entails as normal; SSM being a strategic but critical point in this campaign, I have no doubt that the AMF would not exist.
    Gay lobbyists are indeed the aggressors in this exercise of social engineering as they are resonsible for the challenge to social norms (based around the concept of family) that have been in place and have served society well for thousands of years. Therefore your efforts to defend the aggressors can only be considered legitimate if the position of those holding the contrary view is opposed to what is right and just……right and just being that position most conducive to the common good.
    Children are created by males and females so each of us is a complex mix of male and female passed on to us by our mothers and fathers. Part of the challenge of life is seeking balance, not least the balance in being male and female toward becoming well adjusted as men and women. It is every child’s right to experience the maleness of their father and femaleness of their mother. Placing the rights and needs of voiceless children before the aspirations of gay adults, a just society will look to replace the mother and/or father of an orphaned child into care where the child is able to experience the balance of female and male carers. The gay rights proponents affronted by such logic respond always from a defensive position which seeks to serve their own interests ignoring what is best for the child……and by intimate association best for our society. Aspiring to the common good
    (serious historical failings not withstanding) a healthy society is challenged to raise standards by seeking ideals. Much of the premise of the gay activist’s posturing for ‘equality’ is the setting of standards by deficit. ‘ X number of heterosexuals fail at marriage therefore…..X number of heterosexuals mess up children’s lives therefore……. Our society is in serious trouble if we accept this model for establishing standards!
    Then we have the fluffy substance deficient catchcry of ‘Love is Love’. What in truth does this mean? Is love love when heterosexuals divorce? Is love love when parents mess up their children’s lives? In response to objections against gay’s parenting children a prominent politician amongst others has countered with the fact that gays already have children. For those gays and lesbians who have fathered and mothered children are these children products of love is love or like the heterosexual cases above do they apply more honestly to the realm of confusion about love, immaturity in love, failure to love?
    Nick If you are familiar with aspects of behaviours associated with the ‘Stockholm syndrome’ and ‘trauma bonding’ you will realise the complexity of the human person being both incredibly resilient but also very fragile. It is careless at best to promote the efficacy of same sex parenting because you have ‘evidence’ of children from same sex homes happily getting on with life.

    • I believe adopted children should be placed with the couple that they will be the happiest with. If that is a straight couple, then by all means put them with the straight couple. But if that is a gay couple, then not putting the child with them is an injustice against the child. I am not driven by absolutes. I assess on a case by case basis. I think that’s the sensible approach.

      Of course divorce isn’t love. I think divorce should be legal, but I concede that it is generally undesirable.

      By the way, was that “prominent politician” Anna Burke? She spoke at my school back in July. I actually gave the closing remarks/thank you/farewell to her speech.

      • Nick, Are you a parent? I have three children, and all of them want their mum and dad to live with. They would be heart-broken if they were separated from either my husband or myself. My nine year old daughter said, “I love living with my mum and dad…I would prefer if you (mum) and dad got divorced rather than live with 2 mums like my friend…” Her friend had told my daughter, “I looked everywhere at home for my dad, but I couldn’t find him.” My daughter and I have felt sad for her friend not having known her dad. However, we are constantly told by the gay lobby group that a dad or a mum doesn’t matter. Are we suppose to stop caring about children we see are suffering from the loss of not having a mum or dad? How would an adoption agency decide to measure “happiness” between a child living with heterosexual couple and same-sex couple? Do you know what it’s like to have grown up in a family with a mum and dad +- brothers and sisters? I grew up in a large family with brother and sisters, and we lived on a farm. I wanted the best for my children, and they deserved to have the love from their biological mum and dad. I don’t have any regrets, and my children are never searching for their biological parents. The LGBTIAQ lobby group are spreading lies that children don’t need their mum or dad, only a loving home matters. I know a child has recently lost their young mother (lesbian) unexpectedly. I can’t help but feel for this child as she grieves the loss of her mum. I know she has another mum, but she isn’t the same. This child will grow up with her 2 other siblings (non-related) and she will see the likeness of them to her other mother. However, she’ll be different, and I’m not sure how she’ll fit in. It doesn’t seem fair that married/non-married lesbian’s life expectancy is significantly less than heterosexual married females. I am concerned for the partner and how she’ll cope with full-time work and 3 small children. I pray to God that her life is longer so the 3 children aren’t left to adoption.

        I am upset when ever I hear of someone suffering loss by death, divorce, and separation. However, IVF, surrogacy, and adoption are also experiences of loss that are difficult to deal with for the child. I have worked as a health care worker for over 26yrs, and I could never encourage behaviours which are harmful to people’s health. I have seen too many experiences of loss to know this isn’t good for the soul. I know too many people whom have married and had children, and some have married a few times. They don’t admit their failures in their marriage, but instead blame it on homosexuality. The life-style of same-sex couples is extremely different to heterosexual relationships of waiting for sex until marriage. People today are extremely selfish, and I observe this in the hospital. Same-sex couples are treating marriage as a single room, and believe they will affect no one but themselves. Unfortunately, marriage is like being in a bed with 6 other people, and their making it unpleasant for everyone in this room. They don’t want to obey the rules, they want to change the rules and make it for themselves. It appears that these people have never been told “no” by their parents or they haven’t listen to anyone. You could tell them, “if you’re going to behave that way, you’ll kill yourself,” but they don’t care. Is it a right for 1% of same-sex people to change the meaning of marriage for the 99% heterosexual people in Australia? If the answer is Yes, then it’s time for healthcare professionals to leave the hospital because the selfish generation are taking over, and they can look after themselves.

  4. Hi Janine. I’m 18, and not a parent.

    You said:

    Nick, Are you a parent? I have three children, and all of them want their mum and dad to live with. They would be heart-broken if they were separated from either my husband or myself. My nine year old daughter said, “I love living with my mum and dad…I would prefer if you (mum) and dad got divorced rather than live with 2 mums like my friend…” Her friend had told my daughter, “I looked everywhere at home for my dad, but I couldn’t find him.”

    Of course. I absolutely agree with that. Of course if you’ve been raised by parents who love you and you love them all your life, you will be harmed by being removed from them. That kids of same-sex parents do well does not mean they can be snatched from their parents in the middle of their childhood, be placed with same-sex parents and still do well. No one thinks that. But that’s not what marriage equality means.

    You said:

    Are we suppose to stop caring about children we see are suffering from the loss of not having a mum or dad? How would an adoption agency decide to measure “happiness” between a child living with heterosexual couple and same-sex couple? Do you know what it’s like to have grown up in a family with a mum and dad +- brothers and sisters? I grew up in a large family with brother and sisters, and we lived on a farm. I wanted the best for my children, and they deserved to have the love from their biological mum and dad. I don’t have any regrets, and my children are never searching for their biological parents.

    I agree with it all. Of course children who go through trauma will suffer, and I feel very sorry for them. I also do have reservations about IVF and surrogacy, because there are often admittedly problems with biological disconnects. But these are governed by different laws entirely, not marriage laws. We don’t ban straight marriage to prevent it for straight people.

    A couple more things: Selfishness is more evident in straight people than gay people. Katy Faust said this herself on Lateline when she said “Absolutely heterosexuals have led the way on that charge.” Gay people with a lifestyle inappropriate for children (who do exist, just like straight people) don’t have them. Gay couples are more likely to adopt vulnerable children than straight couples, and according to a review of U.S. Census data released last week, spend, on average, an hour more with their kids than straight couples. Also, if marriage equality does come to Australia, it will be the result of a majority vote, not a 1% vote.

    • Nick, I hope you realise that many gay/lesbian parents were once in heterosexual relationships. Did they love their child/children as a gay/lesbians when they were in heterosexual relationships including marriages? we don’t know. These same gay/lesbian parents take themselves into a same-sex marriage. How is this going to make them a better parent than before if they decide to adopt a child? The child will have their own problems coming into a new relationship, so how doesn’t same-sex marriage solve this child’s problems better than a heterosexual couple? Any research claiming evidence that same-sex marriage makes a child better than a heterosexual marriage is ridiculous as relationships between a child and parents are too complex. I have over 26 years working with people and I have some understanding in the complexity of relationships. Is it prejudice to stop people with same-sex attraction from being married? Many of these people have been married in opposite-sex relationships, and some claim that these marriages were great and they love their children. Is it prejudice for all parents to stop their children developing friendships with the same-sex incase their friend wants more than friendship? If society values same-sex attraction as normal and children don’t need to control their sexual behaviour with their friends, then parents will intervene to stop their child/children being hurt by these relationships. My mother could have prevented my homosexual experience by not allowing my girlfriend to sleep with me when I was 9 years old. I never allow my girls to develop really close relationships with their girlfriends because of my past experience.

      I believe both gay/lesbian and heterosexual people can be selfish. However, gay and lesbian people are demanding to change the institute of marriage for themselves, when often they have been in heterosexual marriages in the past and have children from those relationships. The legal definition of marriage will change into a “marriage for benefits” or the “meaningless marital status.” The ideal of marriage is for couples to wait until marriage to have a sexual relationship and the blessing of biological children come within marriage. The new “marriage for benefits” club doesn’t display this sexual behaviours because same-sex couples can’t practice this sexual behaviour. I will tell you marriage equality means heterosexual will behave equally to same-sex couples. They will commit to a life-time of anal and oral sex and exclude all others. Then they will use their “friends with benefits,” divorce, separation, IVF, surrogacy and or adoption to get their children. That will mean all children are at least separated from one biological parent which will make heterosexual and same-sex couples equal. In this new “marriage for benefits” club there is no religion so no sin, adultery and divorce are an issue. Open marriages, affairs and pornography are all excepted within this new marriage. The sexual life-style of homosexuals is the behaviours practiced by the new “marriage for benefits” club. There will be millions of married Australian couples whom don’t identify with this new “marriage for benefits” club and will want to create a Biological Family Act which includes natural marriages. This will make Australians more intolerant, prejudice etc than ever as couples will have to choose to identify with the practice of homosexual or heterosexual behaviours.

  5. You’re right to point out that some gay people have children from straight relationships. Often, they then come out and move into a gay relationship. I agree that this hurts children. Allowing same sex marriage will decrease the pressure on gay people to form straight relationships, and therefore, less children will be harmed.

    And yes, it is absolutely prejudice for parents to ban their children from being friends with same-sex attracted young people. Doing that is one of the most disgusting and reprehensible things I can possibly imagine. I know not to make any inappropriate advance to any of my male friends, and they know I’m bi, and they’ve got absolutely no problem with it. Two of my other friends are gay. No one’s intimidated or acts inappropriately. And trying to force abstinence on teenagers has been unequivocally proven to be a terrible idea.

    I have reservations about IVF and surrogacy, but they are governed by entirely different laws. And contrary to David’s endless insistence, state prohibitions will not be overturned. Marriage is a federal power, but adoption, surrogacy and IVF are straight powers.

    • “State” powers, not “straight” powers.

    • Nick, Marriage is the foundation to a family, and this underpins all the State laws to adoption, surrogacy and IVF. It is the children whom will have to suffer the loss of a biological mum and dad in silence. My daughter’s friend who has been raised from birth by two mums felt a sense of loss at not being able to find her dad at home. She could see by her friends at school whom had a dad. Her mum lied to my daughter by telling her that her friend’s dad comes over when she is at swimming lessons so she hasn’t seen him. It is like her dad is Santa – not real and will never be a part of her life. If this parent can lie to my child, I don’t have much faith that she will tell her own daughter the truth. Do you really believe gay and lesbian people will never be attracted to opposite-sex people and have children in heterosexual relationships once same-sex marriage is legal? Nick, you may have learnt to not make inappropriate advances on other guys, but your a guy. I can tell you girls work totally differently because we don’t usually do the asking out in a relationship. Nick, it is hard for me as a parent to trust others because that trust was broken as a child with my girlfriend. I want the best for my children, and I will do what ever it takes to protect them. This may seem hard for you to comprehend but you haven’t had my experience to live with. I don’t believe the new “marriage for benefits” club is about love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice and family because children are of no concern in this new relationship. My husband and I love our children, we will always be there for our children. We’re absolutely devoted to them and sacrifice a significant amount of time and energy so they can enjoy sport and school activities. We spend a huge amount of money on private education for them so they can learn in a positive environment. We know it is important for our children to learn family values and religious moral beliefs to help them control or guide their behaviours including sexual behaviours and practices.

      You keep reminding me that the laws of marriage have nothing to do with children. However, I don’t believe you because I am married, and I know the main reason my husband and I decided to get married was for the benefit of our children. When a marriage breaks down in a divorce the Family Court is often trying to get the best possible outcome for any children involved. Why would a Family court take into consideration children if marriage is nothing to do with children? If the Family Court really believed that children have nothing to do with marriage, then they would just divide up the assets evenly between the couple. I can’t help but believe you don’t see the big picture yet. You remind me of a hospital which forgot to include a pan-room. The most important part to a hospital is having patients and health professionals to take care of them. However, a hospital without a pan-room is a disaster for both patients and health care professionals. Marriage is important for men and women, but forgetting about children in marriage is a disaster for families and our Australian society. Everyone knows that not all people want children in their marriages, but it is a disaster for a couple when a baby arrives in their marriage and there has been no plan made for this to happen. However, advocating a life-style which can’t reproduce biological children and has significant harmful health problems is a disaster for families and our society. The education and healthcare resources required to meet the healthcare needs of this new lifestyle would significantly impact on other education and health services currently provided. You need to research on gays/lesbians complaining in the USA about healthcare services such as AIDS prevention have been cut as money has been redirected to the legal system for same-sex marriages and divorce. If the gay community wasn’t advocating for same-sex marriage, the government wouldn’t need to spend a significant amount of money on trying to deal with this issue fairly. I would be spending more of my time caring for people in Cardiac Care, and giving this money to the poor in our community. However, I have been only working one day a week for the past 6-9 months because this issue of marriage is extremely important, and I don’t want to observe a generation of children suffering from missing a mum or a dad.

      • The only way that a gay couple can have children at the moment are through adoption, surrogacy, and IVF, which are regulated by different laws entirely.

        David may like to keep insisting that the right to marriage is the right to found a family, but that’s his personal view. It’s not Australian law.

        Marriage is a power for the federal government. Everything else are powers for the states. The federal government has no authority to interfere with state laws over adoption, surrogacy and IVF.

        I don’t know enough about your friend’s daughter to form any conclusion.

        Why are you so insistent that gay people form straight relationships? If they want to and everyone’s happy, fine. But it’s a massive risk. If they don’t want to, it’s a recipe for disaster.

        • Nick, With the high divorce rate in same-sex marriage, Do you call this a disaster? Obviously, same-sex marriage doesn’t keep people that are friends together. Where is all the money going to come from to fund this new “new marriage for benefits” club? New education programs which promote sexual behaviours which have significant health problems. Where is our society going to find the money to pay for it? Health services resources will have to be allocated from other areas of health. People will have to wait longer for a knee operation, which is considered to be less urgent area of health to provide resources for people suffering self-harm/abuse, infertility, cancers, STDs, HIV/AIDS. In America it cost US$300 000 per person for a life-time treatment for HIV. You should look up to see how many people are suffering from HIV and STDs in Australia, it is the highest it has ever been and is expected to get worse in this Hook-Up-Culture for both same-sex and heterosexual couples. Since Australian society hasn’t been encouraging positive sexual behaviours for years, this is having a huge effect on people’s lives and society. The cost of the Royal Commission in child sexual abuse and family violence means money has to be redirected from other areas of spending. It is often the poor that miss out on services because they have no political power. If same-sex marriage becomes legal then all the children in these marriages have a right to sue the Australian government when they become adults. No government has the right to legally separate a child from their biological parents. Can you prove that these children will have no right to sue the government? To change all the legal documents to make marriage a genderless “marriage for benefit’ Club will be a significant cost to the community. You and every tax payer will pay same-sex marriage! I hope your not dependent on public education and health. Nick, you really need to look at the big picture. Every professional I talk to agrees that we no longer need to get legally married. The government has no control over religion. I have never needed my marriage certificate for health benefits or anything when I lived in Boston MA. I will never be married in this new “marriage for benefits” club. I don’t need a marriage certificate, wedding or divorce for homosexual behaviour (anal and oral sexual behaviours). Nick, you need to remember couples can no longer say legal marriage is a sexual union between a man and a woman in this new “marriage for benefits” club. Why can’t other relationships be recognised as “marriage for benefits” because marriage will be no longer religious?

          • All right, it’s getting progressively harder to understand your doomsday prophecies.

            First of all, gay couples have a lower or equal rate of divorce than straight couples, not higher.

            Second, what’s wrong with “marriage for benefits”? I thought the benefits of something were why we did it. I don’t know why you’re obsessed, or think everyone else is so obsessed, with marriage being a sexual union between a man and a woman, and think that they won’t want marriage anymore if same sex marriage is legal.

            Thirdly, you’re worried about STIs and casual hook ups. Isn’t it slightly foreseeable that same sex marriage could make gay couples more committed and therefore reduce STIs?

          • Nick, I see where you are deceived by equality for adults at the expense of inequality for children. I have had a life-time working with people to understand relationships a lot more than an 18 year old student. Governments didn’t stop Nestle promoting and encouraging formula milk being sold to poor women for their babies in third world countries. Nestle promoted the ideology that for babies to be loved, happy and healthy then mothers needed to feed their babies formulated milk. This was a disaster and many babies died as the formula was diluted in the wrong quantity by siblings whom couldn’t read the instructions. Also, the water was contaminated, and bottles were’t sterilised. Nick, your too innocent to see the big picture. I am sure if you had children and a life-time of working with people, you’d then understand the significant harmful health and relationship problems I am warning our society against. Europe’s culture is changing very quickly and the church is basically in a museum. The Guardian reported recently of many doctors threatening and or leaving the NHS (National Health System) in England because of underfunding and how they were being treated by people in society. When there is a significant negative change in the morality of people this will have a negative, harmful impact on people and society.

            I keep telling you that legal marriage is the sexual union between a man and a woman which can reproduce biological children because this the only reason my husband and I got legally and religiously married. If marriage had been about love for my close girlfriends, I wouldn’t have got legally married. I saw no benefits from the government for being legally married, and I only have a certificate of marriage by the church. What are the legal benefits I would miss out on if my husband and I only had a church marriage? Where is the scientific evidence that same-sex marriages has a lower rate of divorce than heterosexuals? Where is the evidence that same-sex marriages decrease STDs? If children are reportedly doing better in same-sex relationships than married relationships then it doesn’t make any sense for same-sex couples to get married. You need to provide evidence that men will continue to get legally married to women because the new “marriage for benefits” club is no longer about a heterosexual relationship which reproduces biological children.

            “Doomsday” is only a problem for people whom have no religious moral beliefs. You might say I see “doomsday” every time I work in the hospital, however I always see hope even in the midst of suffering and pain. Even if 99% of Australia’s population had significant harmful health and relationship problems as a result of legalising same-sex marriage. Then I would be the 1% of Australians shining light in a dark world. There is always hope in the world when there are good people trying to help others. I have spent a life-time caring for other people, and it is better and less expensive to prevent a problem than trying to cure one. I want to prevent the harmful health and relationship problems as a result of homosexual behaviours (anal and oral sex) which girls, women and or guys can present to GP’s and hospitals. These harmful and preventable health problems include faecal incontinence, self-harm/suicide, anal pain, anal cancers, anal fistulas, green vaginal discharge causing infertility, cervical cancers, throat/tongue cancers, STDs/HPV, HIV/AIDS, pelvic inflammatory disease which leads to infertility and death if left untreated.

  6. All right, I’m kind of confused as to how we got onto Nestle and doctors quitting, but anyway.

    And no, I don’t oppose equality for children. Like I said, I have reservations about IVF and surrogacy. But they’re different issues entirely.

    If you want evidence that gay marriage reduces STIs, here it is.

    How gay marriage could reduce HIV and suicide – Telegraph

    Gay marriage can reduce STDs | Patch

    Study Finds Gay Marriage Laws Impact The Health Of A State

    Public Health Implications of Same-Sex Marriage

    The following is correlative, not causative, but still:

    MA Gay Marriage Brings Perilous Drop in Divorce, STD, Teen Pregnancy Rates?

    • Nick, Don’t be confused, you talked about “doomsday” and I highlighted Nestle formula milk and doctors threatening and or leaving the NHS which had come about by implementing changes which have caused a significant harmful health problem and has had a negative impact on their society. Why I am telling you this information is because you are supporting a change to marriage which is man-made “marriage for benefits” club, and supported by the LGBTIA lobby group. There are many scientific research evidence that show the homosexual lifestyle which includes the practice of homosexual behaviours (anal and oral sexual behaviours) has significant harmful health problems. Do you seriously believe a wedding day is going to fix these health problem? The evidence you have provided states “could” doesn’t prove marriage has decreased these harmful health problems. If the practice of sexual behaviour hasn’t changed then the outcome remains the same. With the short time-frame and less than 10% of same-sex couples marrying in the countries which have legalised same-sex marriage these reports don’t mean much. However, the really big problem you’re continually ignoring is the changes to marriage for heterosexual couples. Remember marriage has been about a sexual union between a man and woman since the beginning of time. It has been supported by human rights, religions, laws of nature, history and scientific research. Are you suggesting that billions of people have somehow got marriage wrong for all these years. Your unable to provide one piece of scientific information to support that marriages will continue between men and women if same-sex marriages become legalised in Australia. This new “marriage for benefits” club is significantly different to natural marriage because religion has nothing to do with it. You keep ignoring my question, “What legal benefits would my husband and I miss out on if we only had a church marriage?” If you can’t come up with some really big reasons to support legal heterosexual marriage then it will cease to exist. No one would be stupid to marry for love as we all know we change our feelings. However, millions of Australians like me have married because of having a sexual union which reproduces biological children. My husband and I never needed to get married if we were only going to be friends. However, a sexual union between a man and woman which can reproduce a biological child was the only reason for us to get married. If you change marriage then heterosexual couples don’t need to get married. Please give me some really good reasons for this new “marriage for benefits” club, and you can’t use the past history of marriage because it is irrelevant in this new marriage. So far you haven’t provided good reasons to change marriage for the equality of adults at the expense of inequality of children.

  7. I provided evidence of not just predictions, but analyses of existing data that proved that same sex marriage reduces HIV/STI infections. if you want some more evidence, here it is. From Futurity (Gay marriage ban linked to HIV infection rates):

    “A rise in the rate of HIV infection can be linked to a ban on same-sex marriage, a new study by two Emory University economists finds.

    In the first study of the impact of social tolerance levels toward gays in the United States on the HIV transmission rate, the researchers estimate that a constitutional ban on gay marriage raises the rate by four cases per 100,000 people.


    “Intolerance is deadly,” Mialon says. “Bans on gay marriage codify intolerance, causing more gay people to shift to underground sexual behaviors that carry more risk.””

    Not satisfied? How about this from Action Aids’ article “What’s Love Got to Do with It? – Pennsylvania’s Same-Sex Marriage Ruling and HIV Prevention”:

    “So does this stigma – or its attenuation by recognizing same-sex marriage – have an impact on HIV/AIDS? First, at least one investigation of HIV and anti-gay intolerance supports the view that intolerance is a factor that affects HIV infection rates. The researchers in this study examined data from the mid-1970s to the mid-1990s, and found that tolerance of gay men is “negatively associated with the HIV rate.” The researchers found this evidence to be consistent with the theory that tolerance allows low-risk men to partner with other low-risk men and results in fewer anonymous sexual encounters and risky behaviors. But it’s the fact of legal recognition that makes a difference, not just the fact that it is a long-term, stable – but legally unrecognized – relationship. Another study involved men in California, New York, and Illinois during the 1990s, before any of those states had recognized same-sex marriage – all of them do today. The study found that men in domestic partnerships – a legal status not equivalent to marriage, but nevertheless a legally recognized status – had a statistically significantly lower number of sexual partners and lower rates of condomless anal intercourse with partners other than their domestic partnership partner. As a result, men in these domestic partnerships had decreased risk behaviors for STDs, including HIV infection. Other studies have shown some effects of legal recognition of same-sex marriage and STI and HIV rates, but are less conclusive. A 2008 study concluded that empirical evidence is consistent with the view that gay marriage reduces risky sexual behavior. Analyzing data from European countries, that study found that legal recognition of same-sex partnerships led to “large and statistically significant reductions in syphilis rates” – by approximately 24 percent. But at the same time, attempts to estimate the effect of gay marriage on gonorrhea and HIV yielded results that were “smaller and statistically insignificant,” although syphilis plays a significant role in the spread of HIV.”

    As for the effects on straight marriage: check out the Washington Post article “No, gay marriage won’t cause 900,000 abortions””

    “For instance, a 2013 paper by researchers at Portland State University examined the short- and long-term effects of same sex marriage using a sophisticated statistical model. They found that “rates of opposite sex marriages are not affected by legalization of same sex civil unions or same sex marriages.” Claims about gay marriage harming straight marriage “do not appear credible in the face of the existing evidence,” the authors conclude.

    Or, you could look at the 2014 study by economist Marcus Dillender published in the journal Demography. Similar to the Portland State University researchers, Dillender found “no evidence that allowing same-sex couples to marry reduces the opposite-sex marriage rate.”

    We could head overseas to a study of marriage and divorce rates in Denmark, Sweden, the Netherlands, Norway and Iceland published in Sexuality Research and Social Policy. Rates of straight marriage and divorce “displayed no significant change in trends after implementation of rights for gay couples.” Moreover, “because the United States gives many more incentives for heterosexual couples to marry than European countries, any effects of passage of gay marriage or partnership laws in this country would be even less likely to have an impact on the status of heterosexual marriage,” the author concludes.”

    Whether you are married or not, you have a sexual union that can produce children. Gay marriage doesn’t change that. And since you’re ridiculing the idea of marrying for marriage’s benefits, it really does beg the question: why did you bother to get married in the first place?

    • Nick, As I have told you heaps of time, I got married because my husband and I decided we were going to have children together. We only got married because marriage is the sexual union between a man and woman which reproduces biological children. We didn’t get married for any legal benefits or for health benefits. You mentioned “intolerance,” but here in Australia same-sex couples aren’t illegal, they are treated the same as de facto and or civil union. So please explain how this pushes homosexual behaviours underground which is more risky. With less than 10% of same-sex couples getting married in the countries which have legalised it, these statistic can’t prove STDs and HIV/AIDS are decreased with same-sex marriage. If STDs and HIV/AIDS are decreasing in same-sex couples whom 90%+ aren’t married something else is causing the decrease, most likely safe-sex education. I have no problem kissing my gay friend in public, I will always love him as a friend but I will always be concern about his health and relationships. You have provided no good reasons for the “marriage for benefits” club, so my children won’t need to get legally married if our government changes the definition. They can have a church wedding, but they don’t need it legally recognised, since marriage is no longer about children and divorce has no religious meaning. I will be telling people that I am naturally married and I have nothing to do with this new “married for benefits” club. My friends, family and community will respect my decision to not be a part of this new “marriage for benefits” club because there are significant harmful health and relationship problems. Obviously, the new “married for benefits” club is for all the couples that need the legal benefits from the state to create a family and are likely to end in divorce. I required no help from the government to have biological children and my husband and I don’t believe in divorce. Nick, I honestly believe the new “marriage for benefits” club will also be called the “meaningless marital status,” it will be equivalent to the Hook-Up-Cultures “friends with benefits” also called the “meaningless sex.” In other words no one will want to be known as married, just like no one talks about their “friends with benefits.”

      • If I understand correctly: because you believe that marriage is a sexual union of a man and a woman, and your union is a sexual union of a man and a woman, you therefore considered yourselves married. And you believe that if the definition of marriage changes to something else, your union will not fit that definition, and you will therefore not be married. Is that correct?

        Let’s look at things this way: same sex marriage means marriage is a sexual union of two people. Yours is a sexual union of two people. So you are still married, correct?

        I provided numerous studies that show no impact on straight marriage, but you still cannot see that they are the bigger picture. The problem is that you are so sure of your logical position that you think it cannot possibly be wrong or acquire readjustment. Do you really think your own personal logic should trump what has been proven to be the case? No matter how sure you are, your opinion conflicts with reality, which I have proven objectively, and you should therefore abandon it. Surely reality must come out on top.

        And it is incredibly frustrating to see the conclusions that researchers have come to dismissed as incorrect just because you don’t personally get it. These researchers have found causal links between legal same sex marriage and decreases in rates of HIV/STIs. I even provided a quote explaining why this was the case, but you still don’t get it.

        There are two reasons why this is so:

        Marriage encourages exclusive commitment, which reduces sexual activity with others, which reduces the spread of STIs.

        Marriage reduces stress, which makes gay people feel like they don’t have to be so secretive, and so they can have sex in safer environments.

        Hopefully that’s a little clearer.

        • Nick, the legal and religious definition of marriage is currently the same which is a sexual union between a man and a woman which can reproduce biological children. If marriage changes to “a union between any 2 people,” this is man-made by the LGBTIAQ. What is the sexual union in this new “marriage for benefits” club? It isn’t the sexual union between a man and woman because same-sex couples are unable to have this sexual behaviour. It has to be homosexual behaviours (anal and oral sexual behaviours) which both same-sex couples and heterosexual couples can practice. No one will be able to say, “legal marriage is a sexual union between a man and woman,” but they will be able to say, ” legal marriage is a homosexual union because same-sex and heterosexual couples can practice these sexual behaviours.” Marriage is a sexual relationship, otherwise we would call it friendship or a business partnership. Since the new “marriage for benefits” club and divorce has nothing to do with religion we no longer identify ourselves with this new definition. Like I have previously explained, it is like a church which has been taken over by developers. You may want to keep worshiping your God in this building but the purpose of the building has changed. We will identify our marital status as natural marriage, and we’ll have nothing to do with this new legal “marriage for benefits” club.

          This new “marriage for benefits” club doesn’t encourage exclusive commitment because same-sex couples have to get their children using at least a third person. How does this new “marriage for benefits” club encourage exclusive commitment? It isn’t a sin or adultery to have sex with other partners in this new “marriage for benefits” club because religion has nothing to do with this legal marriage. Open marriages, affairs and pornography will be normalised into this new “marriage for benefits” club as religion has nothing to do with this legal marriage. I can’t defend this new “marriage for benefits” club from including adults whom want marriage equality with multiple partners, children, close relatives and animals. As all that is required is for the law to change by these sexual behaviours becoming acceptable by the community. If the government changes the legal definition of marriage then million of people no longer need to get legally married because no religion will encourage couples to do it. They’ll have their weddings in churches like they do for baptisms, confirmations etc but the couples won’t need to get it legally recognised as the legal marriage and divorce has no religious significance. If all the religious people refused to have legal marriages, then the health services could monitor the harmful health problems in the new “marriage for benefits” club as they would be identified as practicing homosexual behaviours ( anal and oral sexual behaviours). Do you believe a wedding day is going to control sexual behaviours and practices? If people are unfaithful before marriage they take themselves into a marriage being the same person. It is not surprising when they cheat on their partner because unless they have learnt to control their sexual behaviours prior to marriage they won’t have the self-control within marriage. Gays/lesbians don’t have secretive sex here in Australia as it isn’t illegal. At 16, I could hold my girlfriend’s hand and kiss in the main part of Sydney and no one cared. I believe having one partner significantly reduces STDs, but the Hook-Up-Culture “friends with benefits” and delaying marriage means this is less unlikely to happen. I strongly oppose marriage equality for adults at the expense of inequality for children. I do wish you well, and I hope you avoid all those harmful health problems I’ve been warning you about. Take care!

          • Thank you. Have a good day.

Leave a comment