[Deleted for offensive language.]

The ignorance behind this article rendered me speechless. I am of two minds about leaving a comment. On one hand, I loathe to dignify such a single dimensional line of reasoning. On the other, frankly, it makes my blood boil. Caught between such sentiment, I will be brief:

1. I suspect the author thought heterosexual relationship is the only complementary model of relationship simply because he is heterosexual. Simple empirical evidence quickly dispels the so called argument - my parents are one of the worst examples of heterosexual relationship; their relationship has been far from complementary and I feel saddened that they exist to bring out the worst in each other; meanwhile, I know of gay relationships that are significantly more complementary and enriching. So please stop making ignorant blanket statements.

2. Pulling out different concepts and beliefs about marriage solely from homosexual sources blatantly ignores the plethora of heterosexual people whose understanding and definition of marriage are more "out there" than those quoted by the author. In fact, given that the world is dominated by the heterosexual population, it stands to reason that significantly more heterosexual people in number have far more liberal views about marriage than homosexuals. Perhaps the author should consider dismantling the basic human right of his liberal heterosexual counterparts of being free to marry first before he attacks gays. Pick on somebody your own size.

"they want the repectability of "marriage" but be free to screw anything that moves."
Posted by peter piper, Thursday, 25 November 2010 7:36:37 AM

Generalisation. The dimensions of gay couples are unlikely to to be different to heterosexual couples, including those heterosexuals who play around openly or behind backs.

By similar cherry-picking of quotes, I can show that anti-same-sex marriage proponents are antisemitic polygamists, and atheistic communists too, who want the death penalty re-instated for homosexuality. Opposition to SSM is just the first step in transforming society into a Theocracy.

Which is rubbish of course, but you don't have to cherry-pick too hard to leave that impression.

The argument against SSM boils down to "it's not traditional". That's it.

Just as mixed-race marriage was not traditional, and frowned upon when I was young.

There's always been an impression that Bad Bill is lurking somewhere in the background, but so far he's been hidden by Muehlenberg's polite, almost urbane exterior. Not any more.

The first line of this piece reveals that Bad Bill has been unleashed: "A so-called conservative writer parroted some silly arguments for same-sex marriage." No pretence here of treating opposing views seriously, not even a hint of politeness. Bad Bill's opponents must be cut down as swiftly and viciously as possible.

This is streetfightin' stuff, vile prejudice writ large. It's the lunatic in the dark theatre trying to create a panic by screaming "Fire!"

Sad, really, how homosexuality affects some people

Woulfe, the last sentence in your post made me giggle. Very witty. ;)

Peter Piper, I am lost for words at your eloquence. Not sure what you do in bed (and frankly, I DON'T want to know because it makes me gag to even look over there, let alone going there) but arguing against gay marriage by stereotpying what gays do in bed? Oh please.

If one follows your same reasoning, we need to employ marriage police to neuter the marriage rights of many heterosexuals out there who practice dubious sexual acts, putting aside the obvious fact that different people find different acts repulsive. And yes, I hate to burst the bubble but many married heterosexuals in fact "screw anything that moves" as well. Are you tearing up their marriage certificates?

If you want to debate, please come up with something that resembles sound reasoning.

I'm straight, but if gay marriage were legal, I'd be tempted to marry a bloke, just to annoy Bill Muehlenberg. His obsession with gays and what he imagines they might do in the bedroom is a constant source of amusement to me.

Herr or Chairman Bill has spoken therefore it must be so.

Meanwhile why not check out this remarkable interview on sexuality and the family, and how the forms of both have changed over the centuries. Quite often to do with changes in technology and the way that technology always changes the patterns of human relationships. The modern nuclear family being essentially a product of our technological age and the culture of competitive individualism created by it -- keeping up with the Jones's

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/encounter/stories/2010/3029756.htm

Of course programs such as this are why Chairman Bill would love to abolish the ABC.

Chris Berg is not a conservative, he is a libertarian which is really a form of prolonged adolescence.

The two types are really mutually exclusive, although many such types who infest the IPA and the AEI (in the USA) like to pretend otherwise.

You know what, none of us like blanket statements, but teh fact is we cannot base our constitution on minority situations and individual circumstances. Do not be ridiculous. We have to look at the 'ideal' and consider WHY our "outdated traditions" were there in the first place. You all forget that the fabric of Australian law (and thus our free speech land that we all love) is based on these "traditions" that you all so quickly want to be rid of.

Blanket statements have been made by people on both sides of the debate. I for one, am sick of hearing that the only people opposing SSM are the old fuddy duddies who just don't like the idea of change. Oh, throw in the easy name-calling routine of 'bigot', 'prejudice', and what was the latest? Anti-semitic? Please! I tell you why I'm sick of these blanket statements. I don't fall into any of those titles, yet I oppose the legalisation of SSM.

I am female, 24, married, without children, live in metro melbourne, work with gay and straight people, am constantly around people with HIV due to where I work. So, why then, do I oppose SSM? Because my parents do? No. Because I'm married to a man and therefore think my way is the only way? No. Because I've been convinced by the media? Clearly the answer is no on this one as not many arguments AGAINST SSM even get a look-in. I oppose the change in law because I believe in marriage in its original intent. Please don't bother telling me about all the bad/failed marriages between heterosexuals. Yes, unfortuantely things go wrong. My parents nearly divorced. How this justifies SSM is beyond me.

Do I think we need to pile all homosexuals onto an isolated island so they can take their scary way of life out of my world? No.

This is about what we believe the institute of marriage to be. It started as man and woman. It must end as man and woman. That is it. Keep it simple people.

Systematic and effective dismantling agreed.

We can safely predict, taken as a whole, the negative comments will not even amount to a semblance of rebuttal of the article's central thesis. "No the leaders of the ssm movement don't speak for us" "No I know some gay people who live better lives than heterosexuals" "No gay and straight sexual relationships are essentially the same" or some variation on these.

The shameful behaviour of Californian ssm promoters is evidence of what lies behind their smokescreen. Violent words, intimidation and vandalism. Who would trust these people to successfully re engineer our society?

In their own words leaders of the ssm push reject marriage norms and want to redefine the institution to accommodate their difference but at the same time use the word 'equality' like a mantra.

Really, if people think marriage should be abolished, or feel alienated from the natural responsibilities of heterosexual sexual relationships, they should be honest and say why. It is disgusting to deprive our boys and girls and future generations of an institution we inherited and have a duty to steward justly.

This article, of necessity, only addresses one aspect of the gay ‘marriage’ debate, but it certainly provides food-for-thought. If we reduce marriage to the choice of two adults who are in a sexual relationship to have a ceremony to give legitimacy to it, then we have lost sight of the entire concept of marriage. Heterosexual relationships undoubtedly also have their flaws, but as Muehlenberg shows it is the very structure and basis of marriage which is being re-worked, not just the way in which people interact in relationships. This isn’t an isolated phenomenon and reflects the damage that has already been done by our society to the institution of marriage. Unless we guard the very concept of marriage – from heterosexual as well as homosexual redefinition – society itself is undermined. Marriage isn’t about the freedom to love whom you wish; it’s about the public union of two people in a social contract that is only consummated in an act that may produce offspring and form the basis of a family. To ignore that is to ignore our future.

It's interesting that so many people are offended by the truth. The fact is that homosexual activity is anything but healthy and natural. Certain lgbt's want their perversion to be called "normal" and "healthy" and they've decided the best way to do this is have their "marriages" formally recognised. But even if the law is changed, these "marriages" are anything but healthy and natural. It is, in fact, impossible for these people to be married, despite what any state or federal law may say.

Given that there abound websites catering for extra marital affairs within the heterosexual community, there should not be much surprise that this exists in the gay community too. To take a specific example and generalise about an entire community is an act of extreme ignorance or deliberate falsehood.

While men are more likely to philander, lesbian relationships are generally more stable than heterosexual ones, especially when children are involved.

Most gays indicate that they never intend to get married, but would like the right to do so if they choose.

All the posts seem to me beside the point.

Marriage existed for centuries, or millenia, before the government first decided in the 19th century to register marriages.

Talk about same-sex marriage assumes that marriage is something that is done to the parties by the state. This is factually and legally wrong. Not even the state claims that; they claim only to register a marriage constituted by the act of the parties. Similarly with the church.

Homosexuals have the same right as everyone else to form and celebrate committed relationships. They do not need government’s permission or recognition to do so. Their rights on relationship breakdown, or intestacy, are the same as everyone else's because of the effect of Property Relationships Acts, and the Family Provision Acts.

So it is a complete furphy to cast the issue in terms of same-sex *marriage*, or equal rights. It’s about governmental registration of relationships.

I think the whole idea of government registering relationships is wrong, and should be abolished. And I have never been able to find anyone who can explain what substantive difference the homosexual lobby is contending for.

However at least homosexuality is illegal; polygamy is not. If parties enter into a polygamous marriage, even in secret, never mind registering it, it's a criminal offence.

So if it were true that SSM advocates are really concerned about tolerating difference and equality under law and all that jazz, they must be even more concerned for the legalisation of polygamy, than they are for governemntal recognition of homosexual relationships, right?

I only been on this sight a little while but I see lots of artcles about Gay Marraige with almost evrybody dissagreeing with the Authors. I'm a Christian and I dont like Sodomy but surely if Gay peoples want get married it is only up to God to judge them NOT all these Onlinopinion Authors who just want to stir people up.

peter piper,

Many heterosexual couples enjoy rimming. The anus is a very sensitive area.

'The attempt to radically redefine the very essence of marriage is not a minor word change.'

Yeah it is.

>> Clearly the answer is no on this one as not many arguments
>> AGAINST SSM even get a look-in.

Jess, you have no reason to fear that anti-SSM views are being suppressed.

Here on Online Opinion we've had two anti-SSM pieces in two days, and in the last week, publications all over the country have been providing column inches for anti-gay local MPs to make sure their constituents know where they stand:
Border Mail (Albury) http://www.bordermail.com.au/news/local/news/general/ley-resents-calls-for-gay-marriage-probe/2003761.aspx
Daily Mercury (Mackay) http://www.dailymercury.com.au/story/2010/11/20/mp-wont-support-bill-on-gays/
ABC News (Northern Rivers NSW) http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/11/19/3071151.htm

Other anti-SSM stories and op-eds include:
The Australian - http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/gay-marriage-demands-should-be-left-on-shelf/story-e6frg6zo-1225956787304
ABC - http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/11/19/3070792.htm
ABC - http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/41134.html
Sydney Morning Herald - http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/liberals-still-oppose-gay-marriage-abetz-20101121-182an.html

However if you are making a point about the scarcity of valid anti-SSM arguments, then you are absolutely correct. In the current article, Muehlenberg is attempting to pass off baseless fear-mongering (wanton homosex is going to destroy marriage) as logical argument. In yesterday's, David van Gend was trying to tell us that (a) marriage isn't a covenant between two adults, it's an arrangement for the raising of children and (b) children raised by same-sex couples are irreparably damaged (i.e. it wasn't about marriage at all).

You have to feel sympathy for media proprietors trying to present both sides of this issue, because the SSM-opponents are unable to provide anything more than visceral distaste, and illogical slippery-slope fear-mongering.

If they could only get over their obsession with homosex, we might actually be able to have a good discussion.

Unfortunately, there is a "Gay Agenda" which includes exactly what Michelangelo Signorile says it does.

Muehlenberg's article does not contradict activists Kirk and Madsen's own "After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90s", where the authors admit, "this is what you do: first you get your foot in the door by being as similar as possible; then, and only then-- when your one little difference is finally accepted-- you can start dragging in your other peculiar tics, one by one. You hammer in the wedge narrow end first. As the saying goes, allow the camel's nose beneath your tent, and his whole body will soon follow"

If you have a problem with Muehlenberg, then you should take it up with the Gay Rights community, since this is the accepted agenda. All this author is doing is sharing the information. He didn't make it up.

Yes Bill I think you are on the money. There is far too much wooly and general sloppy thinking on this issue, and the implications for the long term outcome both for the society that buys these lies, and the children affected, have not been well thought through in general at all. One only has to see one person severely affected by childhood sexual abuse, for this whole process to fill one with loathing and detestation. Sadly too many people who abuse others have themselves been subject to abuse, often horrific. The very high rates of homosexual child abuse are truly appalling and need to be factored into any of these discussions. How homosexual couples can have children around them without affecting their sexual development is beyond me. I have seen dozens of horrifically affected cases, and I am well aware there are thousands more in this nation. We should not be mass producing this totally avoidable tragedy.

I'm actually proud of myself.

I didn't vomit.

Tell us again, Bill, how urging caution about peak oil means one is going to shoot drivers at the petrol pump.

Or how family planning in sub-Saharan Africa is culling the global population.

Or how dinosaurs walked with men.

I meant to also add that a widely cited 1978 study by Alan P. Bell and Martin S. Wineburg reported that 43 percent of gays had more than 500 sex partners during their lifetime (look it up). Maybe to some that's the norm, but to many of us, it's still outrageously high.

Judges 19:9 - 30

".... [Now] as they were making their hearts merry, behold, the men of the city, certain sons of Belial, beset the house round about, [and] beat at the door, and spake to the master of the house, the old man, saying, Bring forth the man that came into thine house, that we may know [have anal sex with] him.

And the man, the master of the house, went out unto them, and said unto them, Nay, my brethren, [nay], I pray you, do not [so] wickedly; seeing that this man is come into mine house, do not this folly. [here is] my daughter a maiden, and his concubine; them I will bring out now, and humble [rape] ye them, and do with them what seemeth good unto you: but unto this man do not so vile a thing.

But the men would not hearken to him: so the man took his concubine, brought her forth unto them; and they knew [raped] her, and abused her all the night until the morning: and when the day began to spring, they let her go. Then came the woman in the dawning of the day, and fell down at the door of the man's house where her lord [was], till it was light. And her lord rose up in the morning... and her hands [were] upon the threshold. And he said unto her, Up, and let us be going. But none answered. Then the man took her [up] upon an ass, and the man rose up, and gat him unto his place. And when he was come into his house, he took a knife, and laid hold on his concubine, and divided her, [together] with her bones, into twelve pieces, and sent her into all the coasts of Israel.

And it was so, that all that saw it said, There was no such deed done nor seen from the day...: consider of it, take advice, and speak [your minds]."

Your morality Bill. The scripture taught to our children instead of ethics. Glad to see you're on the job.

Hi Woulfe, in regards to your reply:

"If they could only get over their obsession with homosex, we might actually be able to have a good discussion."

Do you mean that everybody who isn't keen on SSM must have an obsession with homosex or be homophobic to some degree? Kind of like me saying all those who are in favour of SSM must have a gay agenda of some kind? I have to disagree. Homosexuality is very far down on my list of priorities or what I spend my time thinking about day to day. So no, I wouldn't say I have an obsession at all, and like I've said (and I'm sure we can all say this) I work with gays, have people I call friends who are gay, etc. For the record, NONE of them want to get married so what we're all fighting for is a little confusing.

I appreciate the links though, perhaps there are more writings from opposition than what I thought. I guess I just haven't seen that many that aren't pitched in a negative way (i.e. to make me think that they are old dinosaurs that need to be removed from earth).

La Trobe University professor Dennis Altman, a gay rights pioneer, has described the gay marriage campaign as “self-indulgent crap...I mean people around the world are being tortured for being homosexual...and people here carry on as if [gays] not being allowed to marry was a huge abuse of civil rights.” I believe Dennis has a point. There are some serious abuses of people with a homosexual persuasion occurring right now in other places of the world. People are being killed by the government which is a terrible tragedy. Effort to change that should be put in those places. Thankfully this is not happening here in Australia. Having said that "Marriage is between a man and a woman" and to say this is discrimination because two men are not granted this so called right is utterly preposterous. Marriage is all about the difference between a man and a woman and the challenge of resolving that difference in a lifelong union. Marriage is all about gender reconciliation. Marriage is all about the complimentarity of the male and the female. Marriage is all about finding love in and through that difference and producing children who will learn from their own mother and father the truth of that love. Children need a mother and a father. Marriage is the best way to preserve and guarantee that biological right that children have to a mother and a father. It is time we put our children first and not last. Marriage is what it is and no amount of Orwellian social engineering will ever change that.

Wolf said ""If they could only get over their obsession with homosex, we might actually be able to have a good discussion.""

Like i said before there seems to be an awful lot written at OnLinOPinion about Homosex by ppl against Gay Marraige BUT there are lots more dangerus things around than a few Queers and Lezzos who want to get hitched

Im a Christian so I dont approve of Homosex but its not up to me to force my believes on Other's they can get married by Celebants like most ppl seem to these days

I think Wolf is right some ppl here DO seem to be OBSESED with Homosex they should look into theyr hearts and find out whats really on their minds.

Really nice comments here. many comments are laced with hatred and
nasty comments towards the author when he has done nothing but state
facts that are quite spot on, accurate. The gay agenda has been around for a very long time and dismantling the institution of marriage as most know it, as between and a women, is one of the goals.

Sorry but calling two gay men or lesbians in a committed 'relationship' and wanting to become married is just wrong. You can say it is about equality, diversity and all that bunk and many straight and gays of course, buy into this tripe. This is part of the gay agenda, the dismantling of one of many institutions that is a proven bedrock and cornerstone of any successful society. Call if a civil union and let us straight folks have marriage as it should be. Marriage is way more than sex between a committed couple. To cheapen it down to this level is as nasty as what some of you have accused the author of. You should be ashamed of yourselves but are so full of hatred and your gay agenda. That is way more sad and tragic than the truth of Bill's article.

A study of 2500 homosexual men in the fight against HIV and yet some people still think it's about equality, fairness and justice to legalised same-sex/homosexual marriage, can anyone see that is just "simply not right/meant to be" for homosexual relationship or is it just me?
http://www.theage.com.au/national/experts-hail-new-weapon-for-hiv-20101124-187e0.html

I agree with Peter Hume, can anyone tell me why the government has anything to do with marriage? I say remove the marriage act completely and let the people decide for themselves if/when/how they marry.

[Deleted for flaming the author.]

Bill,
You article is articulate, well written and answers virtually every argument that the GLBT special interest group can throw against you. Marriage is the God ordained institution signifying the union of a man to a woman to the exclusion of all others - Game, Set and Match!

Hi bill, I and hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of others applaud your stand on this key moral issue, as you do in so many areas. I whole heartedly agree with all of your points.

I also wish to point out to all reading this how sad this homosexual lobby is that they must continually seek approval from all areas of society to try to justify their perverse lifestyle. It is as though they constantly need reassurance that what they are doing is right because deep down even they know how wrong it is.

Further to this, you can rest assured that even when they have achieved the foolish goals they have set for themselves that their need for approval will never be fulfilled as they and everyone else will still know homosexuality is wrong.

People will always know it, say it and think it. It seems a bit absurd that the radical homosexualists would even care what anyone else said or thought in the first place. I know I could not care less what they think or say about what I know is right.

Keep fighting the good fight bill, you are a shining light in the battle against the totalitarian regime of the gaystapo.

Your friend j

[Deleted for flaming and arguing moderation.]

Post's written by people who have been indoctrinated by their religious culture so as not to be able to think and argue rationally are such a waste of space.

Thank you Bill Muehlenberg for another breath of sanity on the homosexual "marriage" travesty.

"Forty-seven percent of gay couples in a recently published study said that they had "sex agreements" with their partners, which clarify how often and in what circumstances they are permitted to have sex with others. Only 45% said that their relationships were monogamous, while another 8% disagreed about whether their relationship was “open” or exclusive, according to an ongoing study by the Center for Research on Gender & Sexuality at San Francisco State University.
The Gay Couples Study said that the couples interviewed typically put a positive spin on “open” relationships, with three out of four participants describing non-monogamous agreements as "positive" because it eliminates the need to lie to one's partner.
The authors also claimed that, "we found that couples make sexual agreements because they want to build a strong relationship rather than for HIV protection."
“With straight people, it’s called affairs or cheating,” according to Colleen Hoff, the lead researcher for the Gay Couples Study, "but with gay people it does not have such negative connotations.”"

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/jul/10072006.html

An interesting thesis, Bill. The crux of your argument against gay marriage is that married gays won't respect fidelity or monogamy. I hate to rain on your parade, but neither will married straights. This has been well established.

There is a fascinating correlation amongst primates, where the size of their testes relative to their body mass indicates their likelihood to remain monogamous. As I recall, gorillas hold the record for the smallest testes and the highest monogamy rate. And I believe our closest genetic relative, the bonobo, enjoys the greatest rate of pomiscuity and the biggest nuts to boot (nice work if you can get it). Humans fall in the middle, and whilst we have a higher monogamy rate than many of the creatures on God's green Earth, we are still fairly slutty. Hey, it beats having tiny nuts, am I right guys?

Adultery is not a crime, and it happens all the time. Some folk believe it is a sin, but I disagree 'coz I'm a pantheist and 'sin' doesn't really hold much meaning to me. But I do think it is unethical, immoral, just plain wrong. And it is wrong regardless of whether it occurs in homosexual or heterosexual relationships.

It doesn't constitute a sound argument against either type of relationship. People cheat and lie, which causes pain and suffering, and it should always be condemned. But sometimes, they are loyal and honest :-), and that's what really matters - not who they're being loyal and honest to.

Proxy,

you site a study, but link a religious news site, which itself sites a news site. Are there any facts here in your religo-blogoshere?

Young Proxy labours under the misapprehension that evidence is the plural of anecdote. I have long tried to disabuse him of this quaint notion, sadly to no avail.

The demands of conscience remain constant. Those who commit evil or break the moral code (whatever it might be) will be troubled by its pangs; and in their trouble have only two alternatives. They can conform their actions to the moral law or conform the moral code to their actions. The former calls for confession and repentance; the latter rationalisation ideology and ultimately a social activism in which those who feel guilty will unite and try through political means to make a wrong right. Guilt produces the need to confess; as the pool of guilt in any society grows, so the need to confess also grows. Hence the growth in numbers of public confessions, aka 'coming out'.
Will the homosexual lobby be content only when such conduct is legally obligatory?

>> Do you mean that everybody who isn't keen on SSM must have
>> an obsession with homosex or be homophobic to some degree?

In my experience, many in the anti-SSM crowd are focussed on sex, in particular anal sex. However in my previous post I was thinking in particular of Muehlenberg and van Gend. Muehlenberg's fixation on how many partners gay men may or may not have, and van Gend's quip that "A little girl should not have to look up and see two erotically involved men posing as her "parents"" http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/the_insanity_of_same-sex_parenting/ reveal that for them it's all about what other adults do with their willies and botties.

Muehlenberg and van Gend wouldn’t define their own partner relationships in terms of heterosexual intercourse. I’m guessing they would say that their relationships with their own partners transcend sex, yet they attempt to pathologise my relationship with my partner by defining it narrowly, in terms of a single sexual act. This is indeed an obsession with homosex.

Homophobic? As I’ve said before, arguing that some human beings deserve fewer rights because they are homosexual most definitely is homophobia: http://goo.gl/nYWkN

<<Are there any facts here in your religo-blogoshere>>

<<Young Proxy labours under the misapprehension that evidence is the plural of anecdote.
I have long tried to disabuse him of this quaint notion, sadly to no avail.>>

Gay Couples Vulnerable to HIV When Monogamy Is Unsure
"The survey of 566 couples found that 45 percent said they were monogamous and slightly more said they were in open relationships. Other studies have come up with similar numbers, noted study lead author Colleen C. Hoff, a sexuality researcher."
http://www.businessweek.com/lifestyle/content/healthday/641124.html

Gay Couples Vulnerable to HIV When Monogamy Is Unsure
"All but a tiny number of the couples reported having an agreement regarding sex: 45 percent agreed
that they were in monogamous relationships, and 47 percent agreed that their relationships were open
-- they could sleep with other people."
http://crgs.sfsu.edu/pdf/healthday_news_gay_couples.pdf

What is the Gay Couples Study?
"The Gay Couples Study seeks to identify and examine relationship dynamics in gay and bisexual male couples and explore how those dynamics affect sexual risk behaviors with primary and outside partners. Relationship dynamics include issues such as communication, power, and agreements about whether to allow sex with outside partners (sexual agreements)."

The Center for Research on Gender and Sexuality.
http://crgs.sfsu.edu/research/gcsintro.htm#whathave

Hmmm...
Agreements on whether or not and how often to have sex outside the relationship.
Sounds much the same as any normal marriage.
Nothing to see here folks.
Move along.

"Hmmm...
Agreements on whether or not and how often to have sex outside the relationship.
Sounds much the same as any normal marriage."
-Proxy

Hmmm...
Wouldn't it be nice if Proxy didn't try to extrapolate the results from studies of gay couples to gay marriages? 'Coz trust me, there is a world of difference 'twixt a heterosexual marriage and a mere relationship.

A lot of gay couples don't even want to get married. I strongly suspect that the staggering majority of gay couples who do want to get married fall into the quoted 45% who are monogamous. The other 55% are irrelevant, and probably don't care that much.

Ok first of all, I gotta say, all you opinionated posters who don't like first-timers agreeing with the author... you don't own the internet! Yikes! Everybody has their support crowd, good on them I say.

In reply to your reply, Woulfe (sorry it's a bit delayed):

"In my experience, many in the anti-SSM crowd are focussed on sex, in particular anal sex." - I agree with you to some extent, anybody who focuses on one issue, even in the name of morality, should re-evaluate where they are coming from and what their motivation is. It is quite disturbing when people only care about ONE thing, particularly when it is sex related. There are studies out (believe it or not by Christian psychologists/counsellors) that suggest those who focus on one moral issue in their lifetime may actually be the ones struggling in that area. However, I do not put the author of this article into that category as he writes on many topics. Also, you did start that sentence with "In my experience" so perhaps let's leave it at that?

"Homophobic? As I’ve said before, arguing that some human beings deserve fewer rights because they are homosexual most definitely is homophobia"

Look, the suffix of 'phobic' at the end of ordinary words can help to isolate many people. Phobia stands for fear. Protecting something that you believe in is quite different to being scared of something that may be attacking that belief. Like I said in my original post, blanket statements are easy to make. To be honest, in the most part, I think there are very few homophobes left in metro areas of Australia. Of course this is "in my experience" that I speak out of. I am certainly not scared of something that I am around every day. It does not threaten my life in any way. Also, why would I be scared of a man that acts more like a woman than I do? (joke intended). To be perfectly honest, I am not even scared if the SSM laws do go through. I just don't think they should.

Wolf is right why are ppl so OBSESED with anal sex? If you look on the Internet most of the ppl doing it are HETROSEXUALS (Man and Woman). Also the Gays Ive known do all kinds of other stuff to each other that Men and Women do and Lesbins dont do anal sex.

My problem with Homosexality is because its against the Bible but not evrybody is a Christian I accept that.

Excellent article – and it raises some very sharp points based on homosexual experiences. “Gay marriage” is a political tool, indeed.

Excellent article, but what is the elephant in the room?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8630135369495797236#

Domestic violence, neglect of children, abuse of children, extreme sexual behaviours of all kinds whether homo or hetero sexual, youth suicide, mental illness, divorce, infidelity. The incidence all of them have been growing steadily ever since the 1960's.

That always was the plan. Create moral & ethical degeneration in all modern, western, democratic, capitalist nations.

Radical, Extreme, Loony, Left, Lesbian, Fe"Man"Nazism was invented to create fear, loathing, mistrust between men & women.

It worked, the number of children growing up, thinking that there is something wrong with them, committing suicide, turning gay or lesbian because its wrong to be a dominant male or submissive female, i know, i must be the opposite gender "Trapped in the Wrong body".

I have personally seen many people who tried being homosexual or tranny only to find queer lifestyle even more unsatisfactory than their earlier unhappy heterosexual relationship, result, worsening mental illness leading to suicide.

The incidence of mental illness among gays, lesbians & trannies is way above the rate for the rest of us, "Non Queers". Queer lifestyle used to be considered a mental illness in its own right by Psychiatry.

That is untill Radical, Extreme, Communists pushed for changes.

Hasn't anybody heard the sensitive, new age, psychobabble term, "Acting Out"? It is not a mental illness in its own right & never was. All extreme or queer behaviour is a symptom of, or indicator of "Probable Mental Illness".

Many of these people need sympathy & treatment.

Good article, Bill. The notion of marriage "equality" really is being used to raise homosexuality to a new social elitism. This is at the total disregard for the purpose and function of marriage: the well being of children and the benefit of society and it's individuals - both gay and straight.

The push to redefine marriage to include same sex unions turns marriage into an adult centred institution rather than the child centred institution that it has functioned as right throughout history and all known cultures.

To Johnny Rotten - Make no mistake about this mate - I am no "Sock Puppet" but you seem to be a "parrot" - repeating the same tired old arguments peddled by the homosexual lobby to justify their intrusion into an area that was not made for them in the first place! I am a genuine poster, not that I have to prove that to you. Lastly you seem to want the privilege to post your opinions but when it comes to anyone posting an opinion you do not want to hear, it seems that they are the bigots, well in that case methinks that possibly part of the reason the standards are slipping as you claim is because of your views on things??

[Deleted for abuse.]

Well said Bill! The venom coming from the gay activists is more because their agenda is being put under close scrutiny and it hurts.

Gay ‘marriage’ advocates want to wreck marriage by virtue of the aim to redefine it. The goal is destruction and the agenda must be exposed and resisted. Anyone who is married should realise that gay marriage activists threaten your marriage. This is not comparable with the battles of interracial marriage because this was an abuse which needed attention; it was inhibiting the full meaning of marriage, between a man and a woman, which should transgress racial boundaries.

Marriage does not admit two persons of the same sex. From the Senate Report last year into the 2009 edition of The Greens’ attempt to overthrow marriage:

Marriage: from ‘maritus’ and ‘maritata’—’husband and wife’ in Latin.
‘Matrimonio’; ‘matrimonium’—’matrimony’; ‘making of a mother’. It already has the two sexes written in the whole etymology of the language. (p27)

The very meaning of the word precludes two men or two women from getting ‘married.’ They can’t. Their relationships by definition are intrinsically sterile. Male and female sexual unions have the profound capacity to generate human life. Not all marriages result in children, however, but this is an exception, whereas any sexual ‘union’ between two men or two women can never generate human life.

Marriage is the public recognition of parenthood, for the public and Common Good, and for the future of this or any nation. It is the bedrock of society, as it is crucial for our children, and governments have a right to support and protect this institution as a crucial matter of public policy. Children need and have a right to a mother and a father.

The contribution of so-called gay ‘marriage’ is to drive a permanent wedge between marriage and its connection with children. It destroys the meaning of marriage in law and society, rendering the term utterly incoherent. It also effects all in society, because the meaning of marriage is changed for all and is therefore a threat to all.

Lemas – you are right. The anti-democracy arguments spewing from gay leftists and their penchant for changing words helped me to conclude that “gay marriage” is a beautiful lie. No wonder this article infuriates them so – because they can’t deal with counterarguments.

Most of these comments are just plain rubbish. They don't address the topic of the article being SSM's blatant approach to destroy marriage as clearly stated by American homosexual activist Michelangelo Signorile... " the fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society’s moral codes but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution that as it now stands keeps us down. The most subversive action lesbians and gay men can undertake - and one that would perhaps benefit society - is to transform the notion of 'family' entirely."

This is a war against marriage - it does nothing to assist homosexuals in 'dignifying' their relationships (if that's possible). Marriage takes men into a monogamous stable relationship for the purpose of caring for and protecting women and fathering offspring. Without it he homosexuals wouldn't even be alive - and without it none of us will be alive in a couple of generations.

You can spew your hatred of conservatives and their traditional values but ultimately we all know that what you're asking for isn't legitimisation of your lifestyle but destruction of ours. ANd you're happy to sacrifice children, created through male-female union, to do it.

To the homosexuals reading these comments. The Christian who wrote this article and the Christians who are commenting do not hate you. As a matter of fact, we would like to see you repent and be completely and utterly set free from your bondage. Our God is able to do this. He has done it for others and He can do it for you though you may find this hard to believe right now. But we do hate your sin (which is not you as a person but the thing attached to you that has transformed you into something you were not created to be). We hate what it does to you and we hate what it does to society. A human child coming into the world was created to have two complimentary matching halves, a man and a woman, to create a loving bond to protect and surround the child so that he or she can grow and develop emotionally, spiritually and physically. Statistics prove that this is the ideal situation for the emotional health of any child. If you destroy that family unit on a grand political scale, you destroy thousands of lives of the potential newborns in the future who will make up our future world. Tearing the fabric of our society is a hideous evil but you cannot see that because you are so caught up in your own agendas. Or maybe you do and you don't care because you have had to suffer so why shouldn't others suffer as you have. I return to my original point. Our God loves you and has immense power beyond what you can see or imagine and He can set you so free that you will never look back. Don't go to your grave knowing you were a destructive force in society instead of the force for good that you might have been in God's hands.

More pearls before swine......

Raging left wing activists love to preach 'tolerance' but anyone that is contrary to their radical social agenda dosnt make the moral-relative cut. They hide under a banner of humanitarinism but are haters of anyone not like them.

E.g I was handing out how to vote cards a few years ago in Northcote, Melbourne, basically a green-hippie stronghold and the feral venom that was hurled at me was almost laughable. Nasty people.

Why do Christians think they have the right to impose their
religious beliefs on everybody else?
Most people who get married don't do so in a church, nor do
they have a Christian ceremony.
I would agree that churches have the right to not marry gay
couples if that contravenes their religious rules,
but what gives them the right to force those rules on everybody else?

I'm not gay but for the life of me I can't see how a couple of gay people getting married could hurt anybody else.

There is a great deal of insecurity and bitterness, being shown by the religous right on this issue.
Is it because you are fustrated that you cannot control and dictate to people, that life should only be lived as you demand.

To me it is the theft of the word marriage, can't they pick another word for their union. That is the sticking point.
Leave marriage for man and woman, not man and man.
That is disgusting. I can handle the thought of 2 females, but not 2 males.

Discrimination is forgotten in this discussion

How can we justify the exclusion of a group of people
from something like marriage,
when marriage is so important in today's society

Marriage is part of our popular culture,
our personal family history
and is a wonderful celebration of love.

But also an internationally understood and recognised legal status that protects and secures lovers and best friends as family members which society clearly endorses and holds as a serious act of legal protection.

Why would we exclude people from this? I can't understand your arguments and feel discrimination is a deep and dirty state of being.

Get real everyone! Wake up to yourself!!

You know, I haven't seen any comments from you gay activists which argues a case against the article - not ONE. It's all been personal attacks on the author with "vicious Bill" this, "hateful Bill" that, or it's been the usual SSM diatribe (attributing the very evils you are committing such as viciousness, hate, warmongering etc, to us) - you want to ignore the fact that these comments FROM THE MOUTHS OF YOUR OWN GAY CAMP (pun not intended) are exactly what the LGBT crowd are trying to do. You have no love for each other, hence your inability to stay monogamous in the first place and the very short length of gay relationships, and secondly for the next generation that you're so willing to sacrifice as pawns in your weird social experiment irregardless of the affect to their lives, and certainly not for society which needs the stability of traditional marriage.

It's not us Christians who are imposing things upon the gay community. Marriage has always been about man + woman (and most definitely about children). It's the homo community that is trying to enforce their belief system upon us.

We Christians will fight to protect your freedoms as much as our own - the freedom to do what you like behind closed doors as long as it's legal. We aren't imposing our will upon you.

BUT Keep your hands off marriage. And keep your hands off our children.

You have just discovered what we old-timers take for granted at OLO.
"Progressives" in general and homosexual activists in particular cannot support their arguments with rationale because their stances on these issues are insupportable.
This is why they are forced to attack.
They turn it around by calling their opponents bigots, racists or, in this case, homophobes.
Nobody wants to be thought of as a bigot, racist or (whatever)phobe so most people back down.
This has proven an effective strategy for these people so that it is their first, and often last, line of "argument".
Some of us won't back down because we recognise the strategy and we consider the issues too important.
So we wear the attempts at opprobria in the knowledge that they have no meaning, given their source.
The psychopath is discussed here:
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/the-pro-abortion-movement-and-the-psychopathic-mentality
in the abortion context but the concept is readily transferrable to the same-sex "marriage" context.

Ramond said "How can we justify the exclusion of a group of people
from something like marriage,
when marriage is so important in today's society"

That's probably the most poignant argument here but you fail to understand one small thing. They are excluding themselves from marriage. It's a union between two complimentary halves which creates a beautiful and miraculous whole. No matter whether this corrupt, evil world system legalizes it or not, they will never experience what marriage is really all about.

THose of us who argue here are not about telling the homosexual community what they can and can't do. They make their own decisions and suffer the consequences in this life and the next. That's the beauty and tragedy of this world that God has created. He has given every human a free will and with this free will most humans choose self destruction.

No, we are not playing with your free will, even if we could. We are about protecting the children who will be the ultimate guinea pigs once this world desecrates and tears apart what is holy and sacred.

"THose of us who argue here are not about telling the homosexual community what they can and can't do. "

Rubbish. You're telling gays they can't marry.
On the basis of your religious beliefs.

You need to wake up to the fact that this
isn't a Christian society, if ever it was.

Homosexual relations are perfectly legal in Australia
and the ban on gay marriage is discrimination based on sexuality,
pure and simple.

<<Homosexual relations are perfectly legal in Australia
and the ban on gay marriage is discrimination based on sexuality,
pure and simple.>>

This statement is readily paraphrased to highlight its absurdity:

Polyamorous relations are perfectly legal in Australia
and the ban on polygamous marriage is discrimination based on sexuality, pure and simple.

Furthermore, using the legal status of homosexual behaviour to justify overturning the legal status of marriage as being between a man and a woman is pure sophistry.

The relentless deviousness displayed by homosexual activists in their attempts to destroy normal marriage is disturbing to witness.

Their callousness toward the inevitable child victims of their agenda is disgusting.

What a joke.

Just because homosexuals are more open about their infidelity just makes them more honest than heterosexuals.

Ever heard of swingers parties? They are more common than you would like to imagine, and they are a HETEROSEXUAL invention.

Prostitutes make a great deal of money off married HETEROSEXUAL men and women.

Once again, an irrelevant argument to try and restrict equality in our society based on prejudice, fear and hatred.

There is no logical, moral argument against gay marriage.

There are plenty of logical moral arguments against inequality.

TrashcanMan has it about right.
I haven't seen an argument here against gay marriage
that isn't disguised or blatant homophobia, mostly based on religion.
It's all prejudice, fear and hatred as TrashcanMan says.
It's almost as if these so-called Christians
have to invent someone to hate and exclude.

@ Proxy, your logic is faulty, as I suspect you well know.
If there were sufficient numbers of "polyamorous" people
who wanted polygamous marriages legalised,
then undoubtedly we would see something equivalent
to the push for gay marriage rights in recent years.

But evidently there aren't, so we haven't.
I believe that your fallacious style of argumentation
is known as creating a "straw man".
As TrashcanMan also cogently said,
there is no logical or moral argument against gay marriage.

Well Talisman, you haven't been looking very hard.
You and Trashcanman are similar in that you ignore the obvious.

Society embraces discrimination and inequalities of all sorts for the betterment of society. Our society doesn't allow polygamy, bestiality, paedophilia and until recently homosexuality. We discriminated against these things because they are not in the best interests of humankind or of society. As biological functions they server no purpose, and as moral equations they are outside of moral tenants upon which our societies were built.

The fact that homosexuality has been legalised doesn't change these facts. Marriage is an institution setup for the purpose of man and woman and of providing a safe secure environment for the growth of the family and the children it produces. Using the argument that heterosexual infidelity justifies homosexuality is a strawman - marriage is all about heterosexual fidelity and society frowns upon and rules against infidelity inside marriage. Please, tell me again how homosexuality fits into that, given that homosexuals celebrate their 100% rate of infidelity, and given that the main gay activists that I've read use this very argument as a reason why homosexuals must destroy the institution of marriage to be truly accepted in society.

False assertion #1: Marriage has always been between a man and a woman.

There were periods in European history – e.g. the early Roman era – when homosexual unions were officially sanctioned. In some periods of Chinese history there were states (e.g. Fujian) which sanctioned homosexual unions.

There are many nations today where homosexual marriages are legal.

False assertion #2: Christianity opposes homosexual marriage.

A substantial and growing number of churches in many countries of the world now bless homosexual unions, some even administering the full sacrament of marriage.

False assertion #3: Marriage is for creating children.

If this is used as a basic religious principle for eschewing homosexual marriage it must also be applied to heterosexual marriage. The principle would mean that people who marry and decide not to have children should be shunned and shamed. If adopting children would make the marriage acceptable, then this principle in turn would legitimise a homosexual marriage under which the couple adopted children.

I predict that, like ordination of openly homosexual men and women to the priesthood and their consecration as bishops, homosexual marriage will gradually be recognised in the churches as blessed by God and a blessing to the world. It is happening now and will grow.

"A German brother and sister are challenging the law against incest so that they can continue their relationship free from the threat of imprisonment.
Patrick Stübing, an unemployed locksmith, and his sister Susan have had four children together since starting a sexual relationship in 2000. Three of the children are in foster care, and two have unspecified disabilities.

The couple, who live near Leipzig, grew up separately and only met many years later. Their supporters say they will fight until incest is no longer regarded as a criminal offence, arguing that the law is out of date. They say it harks back to the racial hygiene laws of the Third Reich and should be overturned in favour of freedom of choice and sexual determination."
http://www.geneticsexualattraction.com/index.php?pageid=1

I'm sure I've heard that argument before:

People of diverse sexual preferences should enjoy social inclusion and freedom from discrimination.

Isn't that what the homosexual lobby have be demanding for years?

These various groups of diverse sexual preferences obviously make ideal bedfellows but for some reason homosexual activists won't extend to others the same benefits they demand for themselves.

Hypocrites or just selfish pragmatists?

Proxy nobody is stopping you having an incestuous relationship, just make sure your relative is consenting!!

I knew it.
You DO advocate incestuous relationships.

@crabsy

Correct Assertion #1: Marriage has always been between a man and a woman.

1 + 1 /= 3 - just because there have been places and times that have sanctioned homosexual unions doesn't mean that the institution of marriage hasn't been about man & a woman creating a family

Correct Assertion #2: God opposes homosexual marriage (read the Bible) thus Christians oppose homosexual marriage.

Much of Western 'Christianity' is no such thing. Christians are by definition, followers of Christ, and for that to be so must adhere to the teachings in the Bible which include: homosexuality is a sin and called an abhorrence to God.

Once again, just because there are some people getting about in priest frocks calling themselves Christian doesn't mean that they are, or that the denominations which allow them to do so are representatives of Christ. Much heresy abounds in the west.

You can certainly be forgiven for mistaking what goes about today for Christianity, because there is little Christ-likeness to show in all of it. As Ghandi said (something to this effect) "I like Christ. I don't like his Christians". Much has been done in God's name (Spanish Inquisition etc.) that is just the opposite of what is preached in the Bible. God yearns for real relationship with his children but on His terms since He's the creator - sin is the sticking point and must be dealbt with first (hence the Christ).

Correct assertion #3: Marriage is for providing a safe, stable & secure environment for wife and offspring, and the God-sanctioned arena for sexual expression.

It has repeatedly been shown through countless studies that societies work best when the institution of marriage is protected and upheld for the good of people and their offspring.

Just because a few people choose not to have children does not invalidate this.

When a person has a lack of self esteem and being, why do they use the extreme elements of religion and other members of the community, to make up for their personal insecurities?

When a person has a lack of self esteem and being, due to their aberrant sexual behaviour, why do they become hell-bent on trying to force their surroundings to conform with their behaviour instead of modifying their behaviour to conform with the natural order?

None of it would matter if they didn't insist on dragging children down into their own cesspool.

gpenglase:

"Christians are by definition, followers of Christ, and for that to be so must adhere to the teachings in the Bible which include: homosexuality is a sin and called an abhorrence to God."

The bible has all sorts of rules and regulations that are completely ignored (I hope) by MOST if not ALL Christians. An example:

"that scoundrels among you are leading their fellow citizens astray by saying, ‘Let us go worship other gods’—gods you have not known before. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find that the report is true and such a detestable act has been committed among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy[a] all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the open square and burn it. Burn the entire town as a burnt offering to the Lord your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the Lord will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a large nation, just as he swore to your ancestors." (Deuteronomy 13:13-17)

It's up to christians to critically examine what the bible, particularly the old testament, claims is a sin. If you can't do that, if you "must adhere to the teachings of the bible", it is therefore your obligation to come and murder everyone in my village (Melbourne) and burn it to the ground.

The bible also sanctions killing babies and children, raping the wives of your enemy, and basically killing anyone for any minor breach.

That's bibilcal morality for you. Thankfully many christians can see through the BS and use their own brains to determine what is ACTUALLY right or wrong. But you say what it says in the bible is the word of god and must be "adhered to".

I think you might need to start a terrorist group.

When a person carries with them the baggage of negative experience, or personal thinking of failure in life, then life will not be an experience of love and happieness.
Rid thyself of this baggage, which is not of your making, and the true meaning of life, love and happiness will be revealed!
So says Kipp!! :)

Can we have a 'like' button?

Thanks kipp, I like!

Proxy:
<<When a person has a lack of self esteem and being, due to their aberrant sexual behaviour, why do they become hell-bent on trying to force their surroundings to conform with their behaviour instead of modifying their behaviour to conform with the natural order?>>

1 Homosexuality is not "unnatural" if it is genuinely in accord with the individual's psycho-biological traits. Homosexuality occurs naturally in many species.

2 If being homosexual results in "lack of self-esteem" it would only be because of the contempt that people like you shower on them.

3 To "modify their behaviour" in order to appear heterosexual would indeed be unnatural -- psychologically and spiritually unhealthy. It is morally wrong for anyone to make such demands of them.

gpenglase:
<<Christians are by definition, followers of Christ, and for that to be so must adhere to the teachings in the Bible which include: homosexuality is a sin and called an abhorrence to God.>>

You must not try to use the Bible to justify your personal prejudices. Some earnest mental effort is necessary to glean God's Word from the Scriptures. God's Word is not simply the words printed on the paper. Taking carefully selected scriptural passages literally and then using them as ammunition for expressing your hatred of homosexuals is to neglect the gift of intellect that God gave you.

Also consider the fact that the authors of the Bible did not have the knowledge we have today about the biological roots of sexual orientation and its psychological consequences. Homosexuality is not a "choice": it is the very being of the person.

If you genuinely want to evaluate your path as a Christian, I would heartily recommend reading (as a start) "Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism", by Bishop John Shelby Spong.

Peace be with you.

"You must not try to use the Bible to justify your personal prejudices. Some earnest mental effort is necessary to glean God's Word from the Scriptures. God's Word is not simply the words printed on the paper. Taking carefully selected scriptural passages literally and then using them as ammunition for expressing your hatred of homosexuals is to neglect the gift of intellect that God gave you."

It is not a personal prejudice, it's a deeply held conviction. The Bible doesn't 'justify' this conviction, the Bible lays it down in the first place. Why would we take what is written in black and white, easy enough for anybody to understand and apply 'earnest mental effort' to twist it to say what we want it to say? God's word is perfect. And once again, we do not 'hate' homosexuals and I'm sure you know that. You accuse us of something you know isn't true in order to justify your own unwillingness to face the fact that God's word calls homosexual behaviour a sin.

Rumplestillskin,one can only assume you have personal contact with the invisible one! Now that is what one can only say is AMAZING mate!!

Trashcanman, if you are really interested in ancient Israelite law and its significance to Christianity, you might read 'Hard Sayings of the Bible' which deals with all that in detail. Nice red herring though.

By the way, Crabsy, if you've taken the trouble to read the views of Bishop John Shelby Spong, why wouldn't you take the trouble to read the Bible, unadulterated by outside commentary and form your own views? I'm talking cover to cover and putting aside your prejudices. You might just see things a bit differently

Kipp, what would be the point of calling yourself a Christian if you didn't have contact with God? A Christian is a person who has a relationship with God and His Son, Jesus Christ and this knowing brings a radical paradigm shift in your life when you are born again. I'll pray for you tonight. This is my 4th post in 24 hours so I'm out of here.

Heterosexuality is normal! Homosexuality is *not* normal! Nature tells us this! It is as clear as the stars in the sky on a night when there are no clouds to hinder their view... To condemn heterosexuals for defending the natural order of things is bizarre, but Nature always has her way - in the end.

The 'Gay' Lobby (what a beautiful word you have stolen) has an agenda which is maleficent. Oh how clever your words, but how nefarious your intent!

Just back off a little please! No, regarding Marriage and Family and Children - the ideal is a mother and father, and nothing else can compare with that, yet you deny it. And to encourage homosexuality is not a healthy thing for society, because we would all die out!! Sure you can create babies if you want them - to appease your desires, via artificial scientific donor sperm and surrogacy stuff (great for the child's identity) - but this is against God and Nature's plan.

But remember that one day that child will want to know its true identity - who is it's biological mother/father - good luck with that!! But of course you weren't really thinking of the child, were you? Your "rights" were all that mattered...

@ Crabsy

You said:

//Taking carefully selected scriptural passages literally and then using them as ammunition for expressing your hatred of homosexuals is to neglect the gift of intellect that God gave you.//

Sorry Crabsy, you need some lessons on Hermeneutics.

"Command" = Do or don't do such and such.

"Report" = Reporting an event which might be either good or bad, does not usually include any specific guidance about what do do or not do. (but by reported consequences it might suggest that for example adultery or incest does not bring happiness or God's approval)

"Parable" Not to be taken literally, has one central point..is a literary/oral form of communication such as the Malaysian Pantun, or the Japanese Haiku.

Referring to SPONG? goood grief.. why don't you just come out and say bluntly

-"I do not believe the Bible is the word of God"
-"I do not believe that Jesus rose from the dead"

and then your position would make sense. But if you refer to the Bible as you did....you clearly do not believe in 'sola scriptura' but rather 'sola subjectivism'. (i.e..anybodies guess is a good one)

What is written in the Bible and how it is interpreted
is absolutely irrelevant unless you're a Christian.
Homophobic Christians are trying to force their religious
values on to the rest of us with this hysterical campaign
against gay marriage.
They should realise that we live in a secular society
where religious values carry no special weight.
If a clear majority of Australians have now evolved
to the point where they realise that discrimination against
people because of their sexuality is no longer appropriate,
then the homophobic minority should accede to the majority view.

This is a democracy, isn't it?

All this ducking and weaving about what the Bible says or does not say is an object lesson in the problems associated with regarding some bits of paper as "God's word".

There is no quibble, I assume, with the fact that human beings were responsible for the writing? The sources of which are questionable, even today, with a different set of scholars proposing different theories on a regular basis.

The selection of those sources is also a matter for regular scholarly re-interpretation, the only constant being that it was finally a political decision as opposed to a "divine" one.

We have so much human intervention, there are so many lacunae in the "chain of evidence", plus so many opportunities for political corruption along the way, that to assert "this is the word of God" is a pretty thinly supported boast, at best.

Yet whenever a moral question arises, or an ethical question rears its head, we inevitably find the most expedient selection of quotes presented to us as "the Word", while entire rafts of other quotes from the same source are suddenly deemed to be "metaphor", or "parable".

I know, it goes on all the time, and I should be used to it by now.

The sheer smug self-righteousness of it all, and the holier-than-thou attitude that assumes everyone other than the writer to be stupid, occasionally makes me mildly annoyed.

To then use that as a justification for the oppression of minorities just makes me cross.

I would be less cross if those oppressors actually lived by their own creed, instead of picking and choosing the bits they wanted to follow as the whim takes them.

Talk about "make it up as you go".

Incidentally, do "believers" consider the story of the creation of the ten commandments to be factual, apocryphal or parable?

Just askin'

In the debate on gay marriage we need to strengthen marriage and not to water it down. I do not believe that we should change the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples. My reasons go to the nature of marriage as the societal institution that represents, symbolizes and protects the inherently reproductive human relationship. I believe that society needs such an institution.

Our government needs to do all that it can to STRENGTHEN existing marriages, reduce the rate of divorce, lessen the number of children born out of wedlock, discourage cohabitation, and frame marriage as an honourable and desirable institution to strengthen our nation.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11268#190700

Kipp, spot on mate, i could not have said it better, sweeter or simpler myself, except that you got it the wrong way around.

It is the Homo, CARS, Communist, Anarchist, Radical, Socialists from the Red/green/getup/labour/socialist Alliance who are trying to inflict their ALP,
Associated, Anti Christian, Antisocial
Loony, Left Wing Nut, Lesbian, Lecherous, Lascivious
Perversions & Corporate Paedophilia

on everybody else.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11268#190707

Ramond, again a perfect explanation of why Antisocial behavior should be discriminated against. Maintaining moral, ethical standards, protecting children from neglect & abuse.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11268#190711

Proxy, love your work. The left always seems to be locked into some compulsion to promote the 180 degrees, exact opposite of "the truth, the whole truth & nothing but the truth, so help them, Satan".

I call it RPP, "Reverse Psychology Psychosis" in which the sufferer is driven to embarrass themselves by being caught out, obviously lying.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11268#190718

talisman, got it perfectly, the wrong way around again.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11268#190797

Kipp, another excellent example of why the "New Religion" of Communism is dying.

I also note that not one, queer or lefty, has addressed any of the secular or non religious issues raised in my first comment.

Now gay people are communists! The religous fundamentalists appear to also have a paranoia of Reds under the bed, WEIRD!
The last time I looked, I was living in Australia, not North Korea.

Dear ALG

King James bible Luke 17:34;

“I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left.”

The Family Council of Victoria recieves thousands of dollars in donations, Bill Muehlenberg (the spokesman) is only doing what he is paid to do by posting biased quotes from people, with the intention of creating homosexual marriage myths. That is the truth people.

csteele - and you use that scripture (which the context in the original Greek is blatantly referring to two men sleeping, not men sleeping together) to prove what? that God sanctions homosexuality. Pleeeaaaasssseee. Read the rest of the Bible - it doesn't contradict itself - homosexuality is a sin and an abhorrence to God. His rules for the good of mankind - deal with it. Leave marriage alone & stop being so insecure about your homosexuality - marriage properly an correctly discriminates against homosexuality, bestiality, polygamy, paedophilia, etc. for the simple reason that it is a religious covenant between man and woman for the family.

jason84 - Bill Muehlenberg left his paid positions specifically for the purpose of not being labelled as such. He believes in what he does and says so much that he put his (money) life where his mouth his, so to speak, so I'd ask you to know what you're talking about before you accuse people of accepting money for paid bias.

gpenglase,

"marriage properly an (sic) correctly discriminates against homosexuality, bestiality, polygamy, paedophilia, etc. for the simple reason that it is a religious covenant between man and woman for the family."

Please, a religious covenant? Only to those who wish to make it so. Unless you're claiming that non-religious marriages shouldn't be recognised by law either.

The Catholic church doesn't recognise marriage outside the church anyway, so why does it care whether the law recognises it? They don't recognise ANY marriage not performed within the church. Technically, i can get married and divorced 5 times outside the church, and then still get married in the church, because I've never technically been married. Only marriages in the church are deemed valid.

When will you understand that the laws of the country are for EVERYONE, not just those members of your particular sect?

Trashcanman, who says that the Roman Catholic church is the defining word on scripture? It has many tenets that are extra-biblical and are *far* from scriptural. I have a number of friends in the Roman Catholic church - some are even Christians (ie followers of Christ)

Civil unions afford all of the same rights to homosexuals as marriage does, except it is not a religious ceremony and it is not between a man and a woman. So, you've got equality, leave marriage alone.

No, civil unions do not offer equal rights as marriage. Get your facts straight. For one, they are not even available to all Australians, nor are they recognized everywhere. Marriage existed before Christianity. It is not a religious covenant, it is an agreement between two individuals.

I suggest YOU leave marriage alone, as it appears it is the Christians who have "hijacked" it and claimed ownership of it.

Dear gpenglase,

You wrote. “csteele - and you use that scripture (which the context in the original Greek is blatantly referring to two men sleeping, not men sleeping together) to prove what? that God sanctions homosexuality. Pleeeaaaasssseee. Read the rest of the Bible - it doesn't contradict itself - homosexuality is a sin and an abhorrence to God. His rules for the good of mankind - deal with it.”

I'm afraid your knowledge of the bible and of the original Greek might be somewhat lacking. It is hardly your fault as deeper examination of one of my most favourite books is not something that seemingly occupies the minds of biblical literalists. But that is okay because I am quite familiar with those who have what has been described by one of my favourite authors as, 'a scriptural fetish'.

As Crasby extols there are those Christians who often appear more keen to use the bible and the faith to legitimise their prejudices than to live out the message of love, peace, and justice that I find in the book. It can only be the hope of the rest of us that the worst of your excesses might be tempered by the true gift to mankind found within its pages.

Now to the scriptures

Matthew:24 ;

 37But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
 38For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,
 39And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
 40Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
 41Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left.

Compare this to Luke:17;

26And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man.
Cont...

Cont...
 27They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all.
 28Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded;
 29But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all.
 30Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.
 31In that day, he which shall be upon the housetop, and his stuff in the house, let him not come down to take it away: and he that is in the field, let him likewise not return back.
 32Remember Lot's wife.
 33Whosoever shall seek to save his life shall lose it; and whosoever shall lose his life shall preserve it.
 34I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left.
 35Two women shall be grinding together; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
 36Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.

By introducing in this later gospel the references to Sodom and Lot then the two men in the one bed it is obvious where the writer of Luke was taking us. Just as Jesus failed to stone adulteresses and condemn working on the Sabbath, this is a fairly blatant message that sexual orientation is not a determinant of who 'be taken' into the Kingdom.

While Paul (of whom Spong's exploration of his probable sexuality is enlightening) froths at the mouth, even calling for those who can resist to turn from marriage, the writer of Luke gives a hint at the absolute grace on offer to those who believe.

I would kindly invite you to open your eyes to some of the more nuanced messages in the bible and perhaps you too can experience that grace.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11268#190916

Kipp, poor dear deluded person that you are. Ditto for all the lefties & queers commenting on this article. Have a good, long, hard, look at these links & yourself. Plenty of room for thought, &/or evidence there.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/the-covert-comrades-in-the-alp/story-e6frg6zo-1225887087909

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/radical-roots-seep-through-at-the-heart-of-greens-20100726-10sj0.html?skin=text-only

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=5vajlNhSzWYC&printsec=frontcover&dq=mark+aarons+the+family+file&source=bl&ots=_JqnT4mkHv&sig=23tiin36Jjg84b7-Ttuxxp7L3gI&hl=en&ei=jKD0TOiQD8fzcfH_mMcE&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CD0Q6AEwBw#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8630135369495797236#

http://www.angelfire.com/music2/fullcircle/mas2.html

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1138597812890776821#

These are the kind of people you are in bed with. All left wing politics is stone cold evil, devil worship & corporate paedophilia.

Moral & Ethical degeneration is the real reason why they do everything they do.

FormerSnag,

Thankyou for todays lesson: Grasping At Straws 101.

Formersnag did you have something constructive to contribute, or do you have too much time on your hands!

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11268#191197

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11268#191200

TrashcanMan & Kipp, What part of, "well documented, scientifically proven, facts & evidence" don't you guys understand?

I can even dumb it down for you. Look at this one, its in video format so anybody on the couch can watch it on telly, only goes for less than half an hour.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8630135369495797236#

FormerSnag,

They may be facts, but your argument is ridiculous.

It's the equivalent of saying all Catholics support Nazism because, their current leader was in the Hitler Youth.

Notwithstanding everyone has a rear passage, I still don’t understand how homosexuals can look at each other's junk and think nature intended that for me.

"I still don’t understand how homosexuals can look at each other's junk and think nature intended that for me."
-Roscop

And it's thoroughly beyond me how anybody with ears can enjoy ABBA. Yet millions do. It'd be a boring old world if we were all the same.

Quite extraordinary response from the homosexual lobby to a factually accurate & solid argument ... and thats the point isn't it? Someone has dared to 'blow' their facade.

When the homosexual lobby are faced with the truth of their condition/ lifestyle or whatever the PC want to call it, all they do is to rally the troops and hope that sufficient numbers can mount (?) a defence which usually tries to claim victim status and suggest a fairy (?) tail reality - that the quotes aren't representative and that Muehlenberg isn't representative.(etc etc.)

But in my experience, both Muehlenberg and his quotes do reflect the commonly understood reality that Homosexuality is an unfortunate aberrant and destructive condition, exacerbated by a lack of moral control over one's sexual faculties.

I don't want society to proceed down that destructive path and politicians should already be counting the costs of promiscuously based relationships which mostly end in divorce, distress or perhaps just another homosexual liason.

May I suggest that it is a foolish politician who does not safeguard children (within the traditional and proven family model) and likewise safeguard taxpayers' interests. Also, it ought to be recognised that the media is demonstrably partial but also demonstrably wrong when it comes to homosexuality. Voters want "marriage" protected just as we've demanded the right to have our own homes.

Chris Saidou

You need to be reminded that your above post is your opinion only - nothing you have written has any basis in fact.

Homosexuality occurs throughout the animal kingdom including we primates as well as other animals.

You then claim that children require protection - however sexual predators of children are not homosexuals they are collectively called paedophiles and consist (most significantly) of straight males (occasionally females) who have sexual desires for children of either gender (often both) and may be anyone from your next door married neighbour to people in whom we place trust such as school teachers and members of the clergy.

You are free to express your opinion regarding homosexuality on this forum, many, like Proxy, do it all the time without censure.

But remember what you are doing is reprehensible - denigration of a group of people. Also your 'opinion' encourages others to vilify and at the extreme physically harm homosexual people. People who do you no harm, often make significant contributions to our society and have as much right to live in peace as yourself.

<<People who do you no harm, often make significant contributions to our society and have as much right to live in peace as yourself.>>
You would also be describing incestuous couples then.
Why do you exclude them from the possibility of "marriage" that you claim as your "fundamental human right"?
Homosexuals would hear nothing from people such as myself if they weren't hell-bent on changing society to the detriment of our children.
Homosexuals bleat "what we do in the privacy of our own bedrooms doesn't affect you" but what they really want to do is brainwash our children into their way of thinking.
Is it because you can't have children of your own because of your own sexual choices that you want to steal the minds of our children?

Pt 1 - For Johnny Rotten ?

The truth hurts, but despite your complaint - that’s not my intention. Only a fool would trade one problem for a more violent problem. And no, I don't need “reminding …” simply because you disagree with the facts as expressed. And yes they are facts. Your misguided view that the problem is paedophilia, is not the reality. Most problems here are correctly categorised as pederasty. Its a subdivision of homosexual behaviour. That is, and despite how the media want to portray it, whilst there still is a problem with paedophiles (in fact, promiscuity across the society) that is not the predominant issue here.

In my experience, no-one wants to harm active homosexuals; they do that enough themselves. According to Homosexual Lobbyists their suicide rate is higher than that for other sections of the community. One should wonder why that’s so, if homosexuals are confident about their behaviour, why do they still require affirmation from elsewhere? My position holds that hiding the Truth will only exacerbate the homosexual problem and lead to false expectations and apparently even higher levels of suicide.

A question of credibility for homosexuals; Do you really think that partaking in homosexual practices allows for impartial objective thinking on the matter or is it more likely to reflect an addiction to the very behaviour you want accepted as normal?

JR said, "Homosexuality occurs throughout the animal kingdom including we primates as well as other animals."

(I’ll ignore your unproven PC view that we’re primates and say..) So what? Is that your only measure of morality? Because some dumb animal displays aberrant behaviour, you want to match it

Pt 2 - For Johnny Rotten ?
On that basis alone, children require protection from such thinking. But Muehlenberg is right. That sort of thinking doesn't stop there. It’s the quotes from like minded homosexuals backed by histories of promiscuous lifestyle choices which have caught the homosexual lobby out and you don't like it. The ‘cry’ once was 'what we do in private is our business' but now we can see your agenda for what it is and yes children in particular (but also the rest of society) need protection from such reprehensible behaviour and people who see nothing wrong with it and wish to inflict their lifestyle choices on us all - so they can feel good about themselves.

Your comment about censuring comments should serve to warn readers. The homosexual lobby’s desire, if it were possible, to censure any contrary opinion to what homosexuals want to do without conscience, is next on the agenda. But they won't get away with that just yet, and the truth has a way of haunting those that refuse to recognise it - even when it cannot be expressed.

JR: "But remember what you are doing is reprehensible - denigration of a group of people."

Nonsense. Reread my posts. Its the behaviour being targeted. And if homosexuals want to flaunt their aberrant choices (Mardi gras, holes in toilet block walls etc) society has every right and duty to protect our own against such destructive thinking and behaviour. Homosexuals need to recognise that behaving like animals is not normal for rational humans.

See part 1 above: It’s a cop out by the homosexual lobby to blame others instead of themselves for the consequences of their actions. Again I am not talking about any sort of violent retribution, but the obvious fact that Homosexual crave acceptance of their behaviour by others.

In the end, Muehlenberg is spot on; the homosexual lobby wants to change the laws to allow for more and more destructive behaviours. Changing the law will not solve the problem, changing the behaviour of homosexuals will

Chris, pleas provide evidence of the so-called "destructiveness" of the behavior.

<<pleas provide evidence of the so-called "destructiveness" of the behavior.>>

Pleased to do so:

Kaposi’s Sarcoma
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00001114.htm
Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/reports/mmwr/pdf/mmwr04jul81.pdf
methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA)
http://ftp.cdc.gov/pub/infectious_diseases/emergplan/pdf/emergplan.pdf
undifferentiated non-Hodgkins lymphoma
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00001104.htm
HIV
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00015611.htm
AIDS
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00001163.htm
Hepatitis A
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00016243.htm
persistent, generalized lymphadenopathy
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00001096.htm
Shigella sonnei
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/EID/vol8no8/01-0534.htm
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol12no09/pdfs/06-0282.pdf
rectal gonorrhea
pharyngeal gonorrhea
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00000348.htm
B-lactamase negative, penicillin-resistant Neisseria gonorrhoeae
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00000375.htm
anal cancer
http://www.cdc.gov/std/treatment/2006/genital-warts.htm

One could go on.

While we're not supposed to discriminate against aberrant behaviour
it appears that nature is not so politically correct.
Queer, isn't it?

If gays are given the rights to marry in each state, it may well take the pressure off gays, their children and families through societal acceptance and be a plus, eliminating or reducing children of gay parents being teased or ridiculed in the future.

No offence to your campaign Proxy [I know you are concerned about other laws being challenged and changed to the detriment of society],however heterosexuals of all ages are susceptible and do carry those diseases on your lists from time to time. Most of them curable. 80% of women have herpes in which their partners are contaminated too. Therefore, in all probability, most of the population catch herpes regularly and are carriers. Forget all of the diseases that women men boys and girls can catch on public toilets [shopping centres, caravan or camping grounds, school toilets]. Again, most are curable.

I decided to undertake a full blood test recently and was surprised it was negative; not from the fact I don't sleep around [wish it was the case for a stress release], just a general test for my age approaching men-o-pause LOL. However, just a reminder, that one needs to undertake a second blood test a couple of weeks later to be sure. One blood test on its own is not sufficient.

Proxy,

So, apart from the risks one takes to one's own health, can you give some actual examples of how homosexuality is destructive to society, which is what chris was inferring.

Going on your argument though, perhaps lesbianism is the way to go, as I'm pretty sure the number of straight couples having anal sex is far greater than that of lesbians

Thanks Proxy ...

TrashcanMan - gee we're doing well here. Johnny Rotten and TrashcanMan. Least you guys have a sense of humour, tragic though it is.

Homosexuality is damaging to society in many ways, even to the extent of having hoomosexuals who don't reach their full potential in becoming moral stable and responsible parents. I knew a doctor who used to tell me stories of homosexuals needing medical care because they'd picked up penicillin resistant STDs on an overseas trip or even in at least one case, one guy had an implement stuck up his anus, requiring an operation. Then we could talk about the cost to our community of AIDS and how much less the problem would be if homosexuals could control themselves morally/ responsibly. I've known a workplace to virtually fall apart because one male partner didn't want to be the bitch anymore ... but I'm sure you have heard all this before. Its time to show some integrity.

and TrashcanMan ... straight couples having anal sex is a wrong as well.... for obvious reasons. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Chris,

Firstly, I'm pretty sure lesbians don't have such medical issues.

Secondly, plenty more examples could be made of heterosexual relationships causing issues in the work place or the community in general. Take off your blinkers.

It was Yoko, not Bruce, that broke up the Beatles .

Please provide evidence of homosexuality being destructive in society. Something that is actually exclusive to homosexuality. Your examples thus far are insufficient.

<<Firstly, I'm pretty sure lesbians don't have such medical issues.>>

Always happy to shatter politically correct delusions:

"Bacterial vaginosis BV is more common in lesbian and bisexual women than heterosexual women,
and frequently occurs in both members of lesbian couples."
http://womenshealth.gov/faq/lesbian-health.cfm#3
"Lesbian women may be at a higher risk for uterine, breast, cervical, endometrial, and ovarian cancers"
http://womenshealth.gov/faq/lesbian-health.cfm#3
"Lesbians have higher rates of alcohol use, poor nutrition, and obesity."
http://womenshealth.gov/faq/lesbian-health.cfm#3
"Lesbians may have a higher rate of Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome than heterosexual women."
http://womenshealth.gov/faq/lesbian-health.cfm#3
"27.9 percent of all lesbian or gay adults reported experiencing interpersonal violences in their adult lives...
In contrast, only 16.7 percent of heterosexual adults reported incidences of IPV."
http://www.healthpolicy.ucla.edu/NewsReleaseDetails.aspx?id=51

Of course, I wouldn't describe any of the above as destructive.
That would be discriminatory.

IPV, huh? And what might be be causin that? Their homosexuality or the pressures and stresses imposed externally by societal prejudice and discrimination?

Increased risk of some diseases? There's an increased risk of disease living in the tropics. Doesn't make it wrong. When you yourself are doing nothing in your life that is increasing health risks in some way, come back to us with his argument. Then at least you won't be talking as a hypocrite. You will still be making a weak argument, however, in this pathetic attempt to justify your ignorant, fear-based prejudices.

<<pleas provide evidence of the so-called "destructiveness" of the behavior.>>
Done.
<< I'm pretty sure lesbians don't have such medical issues.>>
Disproven.
<<And what might be be causin that? Their homosexuality or the pressures and stresses
imposed externally by societal prejudice and discrimination?>>
Blame external factors, anything but the destructive behaviour.

<< There's an increased risk of disease living in the tropics.>>
So don't live in the tropics AND engage in a destructive homosexual lifestyle
or you'll get a double whammy.

The homosexual lifestyle is demonstrably unhealthy and hence destructive
and the best you can do is shoot the messenger.

Typical.

<<And what might be be causin that? Their homosexuality or the pressures and stresses
imposed externally by societal prejudice and discrimination?>>

"An extensive study in the Netherlands undermines the assumption that homophobia is the cause of increased psychiatric illness among gays and lesbians. The Dutch have been considerably more accepting of same-sex relationships than other Western countries — in fact, same-sex couples now have the legal right to marry in the Netherlands.3 So a high rate of psychiatric disease associated with homosexual behavior in the Netherlands means that the psychiatric disease cannot so easily be attributed to social rejection and homophobia.
The Dutch study, published in the Archives of General Psychiatry, did indeed find a high rate of psychiatric disease associated with same-sex sex.4 Compared to controls who had no homosexual experience in the 12 months prior to the interview, males who had any homosexual contact within that time period were much more likely to experience major depression, bipolar disorder, panic disorder, agoraphobia and obsessive compulsive disorder. Females with any homosexual contact within the previous 12 months were more often diagnosed with major depression, social phobia or alcohol dependence. In fact, those with a history of homosexual contact had higher rates of nearly all psychiatric pathologies measured in the study.5 The researchers found “that homosexuality is not only associated with mental health problems during adolescence and early adulthood, as has been suggested, but also in later life.”6 Researchers actually fear that methodological features of “the study might underestimate the differences between homosexual and heterosexual people.”7
The Dutch researchers concluded, “this study offers evidence that homosexuality is associated with a higher prevalence of psychiatric disorders. The outcomes are in line with findings from earlier studies in which less rigorous designs have been employed.”8 The researchers offered no opinion as to whether homosexual behavior causes psychiatric disorders, or whether it is the result of psychiatric disorders."
http://factsaboutyouth.com/posts/mental-health/

Proxy,

Selectively cherry picking examples does not prove anything. For example, 16.7% of heterosexual adults experience IPV, however, it is not evenly spread, as only 11% of males experience it whilst heterosexual females are almost the same as Lesbians. Also the level of injury they sustain is far higher.

As for the marginally higher "diseases" they suffer from, any statistician will tell you that if you look hard enough you will find anomalies. I would guess that HIV amongst lesbians is almost non existent.

TrashManCan, InthelightMinister, sorry I mean "Shadow Minister" and "we are unique" .. you need to apply yourselves to answering these points;

"Homosexuality is damaging to society in many ways, even to the extent of having hoomosexuals who don't reach their full potential in becoming moral stable and responsible parents (1). I knew a doctor who used to tell me stories of homosexuals needing medical care because they'd picked up penicillin resistant STDs on an overseas trip or even in at least one case, one guy had an implement stuck up his anus, requiring an operation(2). Then we could talk about the cost to our community of AIDS and how much less the problem would be if homosexuals could control themselves morally/ responsibly(3). I've known a workplace to virtually fall apart because one male partner didn't want to be the bitch anymore ... but I'm sure you have heard all this before. Its time to show some integrity." and ..

Do you accept that "2 wrongs don't make a right"? Citing heterosexual failures as an excuse for making similar homosexual failures is no argument at all; we need to aim at a higher standard, face the facts and show some integrity please.
Likewise you haven't answered Proxy's points either. ...

and Shadow Minister .. its not cherry picking at all. We've cited particular traits peculiar to homosexual activity occurring all around the world. Further, you need to compare apples with apples ... sexual problems requiring medical attention *per head of Hetero" v "per head of Homo". The incidence is higher with homosexuals just as the number of sexual partners is far higher with Homosexuals compared to heterosexuals. HIV AIDS has spread far faster due to homosexual behaviour than heterosexual behaviour, and in both cases, promiscuity which is a hallmark of homosexual behaviour is the predominant cause.

Obviously for those that think because apes do it, that somehow the risk is acceptable or the behaviour moral, the real solution remains a long way off.

<<I would guess that HIV amongst lesbians is almost non existent.>>

It's interesting that you use your "guess that HIV amongst lesbians is almost non existent" to bolster your claims but dismiss the fact that male homosexuals have 40-80 times the prevalence of HIV as the general population as irrelevant.
You can't have it both ways.

Proxy/Chris,

Your arguments could be used against Christianity.

Top 10 Christian countries in Africa: Average HIV/AIDs rate is 11.3%

Top 10 Muslim countries in Africa: Average HIV/AIDs rate is 1.5%

And a hell of a lot more children dying of AIDs thanks to Christians spreading it compared to gay men anywhere.

So if homosexuality is so "destructive", surely you must agree that Christianity is even more so, as their "practices" in Africa are causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of children every year.

G'day Trashmancan.

No the arguments cannot be used against Christianity and certainly not against Catholicism which stands resolute against modern day adoptions of timeless threats to the dignity of the person.

You're not comparing apples with apples are you. Countries especially undemocratic countries are eons from personal responsibilities and individual sexual mores. You know that.

I notice you avoid mentioning Uganda where Catholic teaching alone can be credited with the lowest incidence/ infection rate of Aids. Why because the teaching was for marriage fidelity and abstinence. So even if your figures are correct (big questionmark) then the only conclusion that can be drawn is that within the countries you cite, they're not practising Catholics.

You make me laugh with a comparison to Islamic countries - bit hard to transmit HIV/ AIDS when you've been stoned to death. Perhaps homosexuals would prefer Sharia Law to the Christian approach of personal autonomy/ responsibility, compassion and the Truth of Natural Law?

Christians are not causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of children anywhere; people not following Christian principles are.

The scientific evidence is clearly against homosexual behaviours because of their promiscuity and the animalistic unchaste nature of anal rape.

Unrepentant homosexuals have put their faith in their own feelings and judgement. Their eternal future is in that one basket - are they objective enough about what they want for themselves to justify that?

Logic isn't going to work here though .. maybe this will?

http://www.youtube.com/user/RealCatholicTVfeature=mhum#p/a/u/0/L8Xs1Hcvbjw

and TrashmanCan ..your figure of the 1.5% incidence in Islamic countries also supports Catholic teaching of fidelity and abstinence ... ie self control..

Thanks for taking the bait, Chris. You found it so easy to debunk your own logic when it was used in a different context challenging your perspective on things

Yeah right ...

Merry Christmas to all

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11268#194004

Gday Chris, sadly you & the rest of us sensible, tolerant, centrist's have been preaching to Satan's Converts. They will never admit the error of their ways no matter how much evidence you provide them.

CARS, Communist, Anarchist, Radical, Socialists are identical to true Satanists in that they always compulsively say the exact opposite of "the truth, the whole truth & nothing but the truth, so help them Satan".

Why is left wing politics referred to as Socialism? Because it is inherently Anti social.

Why is it also referred to as Communism? Because it is, at its core, Anti community.

A strong, healthy, functional, heterosexual, close family with an average of 3 children, that is an integral part of a strong, healthy, functional, extended family, that is part of a moral, ethical, local, clan, or tribe, or christian church congregation is a cohesive, co-operative, social unit.

Sounds like a Commune to me, yet "the left" have been working assiduously to destroy, that which they claim, they want, for several centuries now.

Happy Christmas, hopefully a Prosperous New Year as well, to you & yours.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11268#191208

TrashcanMan, & Attention to all other Loony, Lefties. Some more of the well documented, scientifically proven facts & evidence for you to consider.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eros_and_Civilization

This book was written by a Marxist to "Rationalise" all abnormal sexual behaviour, for the specific purpose of creating moral & ethical degeneration in the west, or to destroy the social/cultural foundations under our "Capitalist" economies.

Every member of the Red, green, getup, labour, Socialist Alliance who is not a "card carrying member" of the hard left factions is just another one of Lenin's "useful scoundrels & idiots" who was hoodwinked by the "Politically Correct, Thought Police".