"Throughout our party’s history successive Labor governments have sought to achieve this by helping people overcome disadvantages based on ... religion, cultural background and racial prejudice."

Oh, ho ho ho. Even I, a scion of a stalwart Labor family (who only finally deserted Labor with the advent of Rudd), know that that is utter b*llsh*t.

Racial prejudice especially coloured the Labor Party from its inception until probably the 1970s.

For much of its history, Labor was unabashedly the party of the lower-class Anglo-Saxon. "Two Wongs don't a white" - remember that one?

It's no wonder that people are losing faith in politicians and tend to hold them in the same regard that was once reserved for used-car salesmen.

The juxtaposition this article pointed out between "helping people overcome disadvantages based on social class, gender, sexuality, disability, religion, cultural background and racial prejudice. We have always pursued the fair go, tolerance and respect. We oppose all attempts to divide Australians by pandering to prejudice." and the stand taken on the issue of same-sex marriage is indefensible.

I cannot see any way in which these two pov's can exist together. Nor, I am sure, can many other people. It is an embarrassment that those whom we are taught are our leaders can still claim credibility or respect while expecting us not to notice that the admirable ethos they claim and the laws they enact are mutually exclusive.

Rodney,
So even former High Court Justice Michael Kirby supports SSM.
What a surprise!
I guess the fact that he's also a homosexual activist like yourself has no bearing on his objectivity on this issue.
Next thing Senator Bob Brown and his boyfriend will come out and shock us all with their support for SSM.
But it won't end there will it Rodney.
The next stage after the legalisation of the travesty that is SSM is the criminalisation of those who continue to argue that SSM goes against the laws of nature and commonsense.
Such hate mongers will have to be crushed.
I weep for those poor kids who are the victims of SSAdoption and SSParenting.
Like the victims of the UK's first "gay" trophy foster daddies who were able to abuse a string of young boys because of their priviledged status which forbade criticism.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-480151/Gay-couple-left-free-abuse-boys--social-workers-feared-branded-homophobic.html
Or how about the fearless “gay” freedom fighters in Philadelphia who shut down the Boy Scouts because the scouts didn’t want homosexual men in tents with their young boys.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/06/us/06scouts.html
Or how about those proud “gay” fighters for freedom of expression in San Francisco who just want the right to engage in oral and anal sex in public. (Warning: some may find these images taken on the public streets of San Francisco at a “gay pride” event extremely offensive)
http://zombietime.com/folsom_sf_2007_part_1/
It’s interesting to note that marriage is defined in their constitutions as being between a man and a woman in all thirty US states which have had citizen initiated referenda on the issue whereas the states that you laud have all been victims of judicial activism. But we all know that democracy is only for bigots don’t we.
Go on Rodney, shut me down before people find out what they’re in for.
Or perhaps I should leave the last word to British homosexual journalist Simon Fanshawe who, reflecting on the “gay” lifestyle, asked "Are we just swimming around in a sewer which we're just sort of saying is normal?"
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/sep/08091011.html

"Throughout our party’s history successive Labor governments have sought to achieve this by helping people overcome disadvantages based on... religion, cultural background and racial prejudice."

Rubbish ! The Apartheid Loving Party consistently supports division of rights and responsibilities for all Australians on basis of decisions/deemings as to their race.

Ia about power and control, by them; Those who see themselves as knowing better, the enlightened ones... and all their wailing supporters.

Need only look all those fake wailers misinformation campaigns around the core human rights as set out in the UN Declaration of Human Rights.

Was fine until these political activists started trying to fine tune those initial easy to understand and enforce principles, with result they negate those same core principles, making their substance secondary to all their exemptions...

Recent attempts to enforce simple legal principle, the requirement that tenants obtain leases where public funding provided for housing (long term) being negated to support the activists promoting racial separatism...

The wailers object to tenants having leases, for leases give rights.

Wailers believe appropriate denial to fellow Australians leases, specially where they use the term Aboriginal.

Wailers support segregation of families on basis of racial testing.

These wailers believe appropriate denial fellow Australians - particularly youth, an education enabling them to interact, become involved in the wider Australian community, particularly where term Aboriginal applied.

The LibNats long failed to object to such behavior.

Liberals disassociation term "Liberal" with "liberal",

Is such adopted cowardice - moral error, a core principle or protocol for politics ?

As to marriage, well the concept of formal relationship lasted a long time, likely will endure - joining together then later going separate ways, however current legal format may well be past its use by date.

Rewrite legislation to repair or replace this ancient relationship, perhaps simple use of partnership agreements with stated common interests and responsibilities, whilst ignoring the sex/roles of partners.

Then again, this is all about tax - payment and concessions...

This is not a question of equal rights – it is a question of social justice. Why should taxpayers money be spent acknowledging and administering any marriage?

Why should governments be involved at all in anyone’s relationships unless it be necessary to do so? If people want to live together that should be their right. If they want to marry then it should be their right as well but why does it have to have government sanction or involvement of any kind. If there is discrimination at all it is towards people who are not in relationships.

Of course people have the right to get married but why do they want to? What does marriage or any acknowledgement of the relationship by anyone else add to that relationship? Are they marrying just for what they can get out of the government?

‘Couples are not couples unless they can marry’. There are a great many people who are married who are definitely not ‘couples’ and there are a great many people who are not married or do not have their relationship ‘sanctioned’ in anyway who definitely are couples.

Relationships are of no business to government unless laws are being broken and if there are laws about marriage and relationships they should be removed. Laws which just protect people’s insecurity of union are a waste of taxpayer resources.

Go on, KMB, demonstrate that gay relationships are any less moral than straight ones. There is no such argument.

In my opinion, the state should only recognise civil unions, regardless of sex. "Marriage", like genital mutilation, should be the preserve of religions.

Just bulldust, it was the twixt of glad eyes that happened when I first met my wife, a sweet military lass in mid WW2.

Met her again on leave when able, and married six months before the war ended.

In fact, there was a saying on leave during the war, when after dancing with pretty girl in the city on a crowded floor.

You had a good looker, but what was she like up close, mate?

Reckon good for a night, but not for a lifetime?

The same could have also been said about a casual dancing partner, by most females of the time.

My wife though fond of sport and fair play, was a very spiritual Christian and whether we both broke the code akin to the above Essay, I know my wife from experience would agree that because humanitarianism can never be perfect, certain friendhips though obviously not normal, should be left alone, as many human interest stories have proven

KMB. By your library store of negative media references to gay people, it would appear you have a fixation on gay people.

Your subjective comments would have some substance if they were balanced with the same negative media references towards hetrosexual people, which we can all bring attention to, but prefer to remain within the debate of the subject matter.

This article is about ideology, not equality. The author is well known for his hatred of all things outside his understanding. As others have pointed out, there are no barriers to becoming a couple with equal rights as others in society if you approach life from a sane situation, rather than an emotional and rabid one.

What right does anyone have to interfere with the set relationship sanctions of religious marriage. You don't have to adhere to it, it's not harmful and if it doesn't accept your approach to life, then that's their business. It mattered 50 years ago when there was only one form of sanctioned coupling, but not now, there are many legally accepted avenues one can take to ensure their relationship is recognised and sanctioned. No one questions relationships today or their status, only those with disruptive or fervent agenda's do.

Basically it's an emotional problem, filled with confusion, doubt and fear. You see it in all ideology and homosexuality is a developed ideology. Poor old Rodney needs to get a life and do something constructive in the community for once.

Basically it's an emotional problem, filled with confusion, doubt and fear. You see it in all ideology and homosexuality is a developed ideology. Poor old Rodney needs to get a life and do something constructive in the community for once.
Posted by stormbay, Wednesday, 15 April 2009 1:49:11 PM

I believe it's more a fear of "the other" combined with condemnation of all things beyond our ken, and using Religious dogma as an excuse to feel superior to everyone else.

I have been told by many people that I am not a "real" Christian because of my liberal views. So be it. But I am unable to condemn any "Creation" of a "Creator" because they think differently to me. Lord help me, I even allow those who disagree with me the right to their own opinion.

I would think that those who bemoan our "modern" society would consider that a loving, faithful relationship was preferable to the promiscuity that is seen as the hallmark of most gay relationships.

It is a truth that is blithely ignored by those who insist that "gay Marriage" is an oxymoron, but I personally know of many committed couples who have been together for decades. Not surprisingly, because the trials undergone in these relationships almost exactly mirror those in my own, faithful and monogamous hetersexual one, I can only assume that what these couples have is a true marriage, and as such I believe it should be recognized as such.

Whilst in most areas I consider myself to be conservative, I have known several gay singles and couples, and the words of one former diplomat put things in perspective for me.

"I did not choose to be gay, in fact it is not something I would wish on someone, as it is a hard life on the fringes of society."

They are still human and as such are owed the same respect and dignity that all other citizens are.

Whilst marriage was orignally engineered to create an environment for raising children, it has come to mean commitment, fidelity etc. Though many Aus couples choose to raise children outside marriage, they still have the option to get married at any time.

The only real objection to SSM is from religious fundementalists or bigots such as KMB.

However, given the large religiously bigotted portion of Aus society, I would suggest Rodney Coombe support the civil unions act, not because I feel it should stop there, but because it is one step towards full recognition.

This is a serious question for anyone who supports gay marriage. I am not being facetious at all, I just want a serious answer to this question.

If Gay marriage is allowed, then in the future what argument could you put forward against a proposal to allow people to have multiple wives or husbands?

That's a serious question, so I'd like to hear some serious answers please. Because it seems to me that gay marriage could quite easily start a slippery slope into an oblivion where there really is no such thing as marriage. For the last few centuries, or millenia, marriage has been one man and one woman. If we now alter the definition to include one man and one man or one woman and one woman, then why not allow one man to marry two women? Where does the buck stop?

So "a couple is a couple" if you are dealing with centrelink. Now what about healthcare? Why can't we have a shared PBS card? Why can't I use my partner as next of kin on a legal document?

How are centrelink going to prove anything? What about the couple of straight young blokes sharing a flat? or girls for that matter? Are centrlink staff to assume that anyone sharing a dwelling with a member of the same sex is in a relationship with that person? Things could get very interesting down at the local centrelink office!

Oh, Centrelink does, Sparkyq. When I was on Austudy I had to fill out an intrusive array of forms and affidavits declaring that my flatmate was not, in fact, my de facto wife. Ironically, if I were gay I wouldn't have needed to.

It's a bit of a challenge to discern any good intentions in some of the posts above, but I'll assume for the moment that we're all here in a spirit of generosity towards our fellow human beings, open to new ideas and opinions, raising issues that genuinely need to be explained.

What I find in need of explanation is the association of criminal behaviour with the recognition of same-sex relationships: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8779#139181 As Kipp has indicated, it takes little effort and even less imagination to find examples of illegality among any group of humans, but this is not grounds for denying rights to the law-abiding majority.

I could also use an explanation of how polygamy is relevant to this discussion: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8779#139221 In all of the jurisdictions where same-sex marriage is recognised, polygamy is illegal. In all of the jurisdictions where polygamy is allowed, same-sex relationships are not - indeed in most of them homosexuals are persecuted. Far from one leading to the other, the evidence is that polygamy and same-sex relationship recognition are mutually exclusive.

I'd also like to know how unfounded claims about the author's motivation further this exchange. Even if it were possible to discredit him by proving some weird animus against "all things outside his understanding," the ideas would still be there to discuss. Not just in this article, but here http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=4541 and here http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2006/01/13/1137118970554.html and here http://www.newsweek.com/id/172653/output/print The idea of same-sex marriage is becoming more acceptable by the day. It seems to me that personal attacks on its proponents simply highlight the lack of credible arguments against it.

Finally, on a point of fact, I'd like to know how the US state of Vermont can be described as a "victim of judicial activism" http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8779#139181 when its same-sex marriage laws were passed by its legislature not once but twice: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/apr/09040703.html

Trav - "If Gay marriage is allowed, then in the future what argument could you put forward against a proposal to allow people to have multiple wives or husbands?"

Trav, Have you heard of the term bigamy ?, Regardless if gay marriage was legal or not bigamy is illegal. You cannot under Australian law legally marry somebody else while your still legally married to another person. In countries where gay marriage is legal there has been no proposals put forward for people to have multiple wives or husbands, legalising gay marriage is totally different to bigamy, I cant believe you could even compare bigamy and gay marriage together.

Woulfe,
I'll concede that I tarred Vermont with the same brush as Massuchusetts, Connecticut, Iowa and California (pre-Prop8).
I didn't consider it particularly important being too accurate with Rodney who claims on his website that "Major surveys show that about 5% of the Australian population are gay or bisexual men"
http://tglrg.org/more/127_0_1_30_M2/
Note that he doesn't say 5% of the male population. This makes his claim notionally equivalent to the canard that 10% of the Australian population are homosexual (ignoring potential variation (from 5%) in the lesbian population) but distorted so as not to be immediately recognisable as the discredited 10%.
Seeing as you used LifeSiteNews.com I guess I can too to demonstrate that Rodney is telling porkies.
Statistics Canada determined that 1.9% of the Canadian population are gay, lesbian or bisexual
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/mar/08032008.html
A study by Deakin University in Melbourne "also indicated that an extremely small fraction of the Australian population self-defines as "homosexual." Only .66 percent of women and 1.03 percent of men defined themselves as homosexual. This figure is well below the "statistic" of 10 percent that is often touted by homosexual activists. The extremely low percentage of homosexuals in the population agrees with the findings of other similar studies in Western countries. Besides those who self-defined as homosexual, another 1.26 percent of women and 1.23 percent of men defined themselves as bi-sexual."
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/mar/08031907.html
"Recent studies in many different countries show that the prevalence of homosexuality is less than 3% of the
population: In a US study, the prevalence of homosexuality was estimated to be 2.1% of men and 1.5% of women. (Gilman SE. Am J Public Health. 2001; 91: 933-9.) Another US study estimated the prevalence of the adult lesbian population to be 1.87% (Aaron DJ et al. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2003; 57 :207-9.) In a recent British survey, 2.8% of men were classified as homosexuals (Mercer CH et al. AIDS. 2004; 18: 1453-8). In a recent Dutch study 2.8% of men and 1.4% women had had samesex partners. (SandfortTGetal.ArchGenPsychiatry.2001;58:85-91.) In a New Zealand study, 2.8% of young adults were classified as homosexual or bisexual. (FergussonDMetal.ArchGenPsychiatry.1999;56:876-80)"
http://www.lifesitenews.com/features/marriage_defence/SSM_MD_evidence.pdf

The government recognition of the privileges and obligations of relationships for the purposes of social security payments, insurance, contracts, next-of-kin, etc, is one thing.

Marriage is something else. It is a matter of religion.

Consider other so-called "sacraments" like "confirmation" or "bar mitzvah". Any government involvement or recognition? No. Nor should there be.

It's worth drawing an analogy with "baptism". At a civil ceremony, I took responsibility to help mentor an infant, offer support and encouragement for life, something much weightier than merely promising to try and bring that child up in a particular religious faith. (I'd been asked to be a godparent, but refused, because any oath to a deity I didn't believe in would have been pointless).

The simple solution is for a "marriage" to have no legal weight outside the religious institution involved. Repeal the Marriage Act (1961) and any similar state acts, and replace it with something purely secular (although I'd recommend it not be called the "Coupling Act"... let the wordsmiths come up with something appropriate).

The only thing that should matter to a government is whether forms relevant to a registry office have been signed by appropriate parties.

If some new-agey "church" wants to marry a dolphin and a cat, let them do it, issue a valid-within-that-church marriage certificate, whatever... but it shouldn't matter one iota to any government. (Although, perhaps when quasi-human rights are granted to anthropoid apes, then governments might consider recognizing civil unions between apes that can consent via sign language).

Remove any reference to "marriage" from all government laws and regulations and replace those references with something secular... problem solved.

I agree with those posters who have commented that the real problem is with the legal notion of marriage. To put it bluntly, who I share a house with and who I have sex with -- as long as they are consenting adults -- is nobody's business but my own and theirs. Why on earth should two people in the same house having sex be treated any differently to two people in the same house not having sex, or two people in different houses having sex? Does it make one iota of difference to the business of running the country, enforcing the laws or improving the GDP?

We should all be treated as individuals: the state and the church should have no place in dictating our private activities; and the campaign should be against assigning individuals to categories based on their sexual behaviour. Let's campaign to be free of marriage as a legally recognised state.

More explanation needed, KMB. Whatever your point is, and how it relates to same-sex marriage, I'm afraid it's lost on me.

I remember trying something similar as a child when I got caught out: "But he did it first, Mum!"

It's interesting that only a couple of people have mentioned my comment. They both completely misunderstood my point and ignored my question, so I await with anticipation to see if anyone will attempt to do so.

“I'd also like to know how unfounded claims about the author's motivation further this exchange. Even if it were possible to discredit him by proving some weird animus against "all things outside his understanding," the ideas would still be there to discuss.

The idea of same-sex marriage is becoming more acceptable by the day. It seems to me that personal attacks on its proponents simply highlight the lack of credible arguments against it.”

Woulfe, Unless you know Rodney Croome, his history and how he is viewed by the homosexual community in Tasmania, then you're just trying to be an apologist. Tassie has very advanced acceptance of homosexuals, the majority are happy with civil unions, giving them legitimacy. The heading of Croomes article speaks for itself, “Couples are not couples unless they can marry” and “ Far from being a remedy for discrimination in marriage, civil unions perpetuate discrimination.”

This is an agenda statement, one attempting to create dissent and division within the community, not a furthering of peoples rights. The majority of people of all persuasions in Tas undertake civil ceremonies, it doesn't perpetuate discrimination, but takes it out of religious hands. Rodney Croome represents Rodney Croome and a small bunch of radical misfits, who try to make out they speak for the homosexual community. Whilst in reality, Mr Croome isn't very well liked at all and certainly doesn't have the support of the Tasmanian homosexual community, just the opposite. As with all zealots, he started out on the right foot, but has degenerated into hating any who don't fully accept his point of view as being right. An ideological agenda.

Trav, your question wasn't really a question, was it?

>>If Gay marriage is allowed, then in the future what argument could you put forward against a proposal to allow people to have multiple wives or husbands?<<

The first takes a legal position - the recognition of a one-on-one relationship - and redefines who can take part in it.

The second invites taking an illegal position - that partnerships can contain more than two people - and proposes to make it legal.

But you know this really, don't you? You're just spoiling for a scrap.

Trav,

If you are wondering why no one answers your question, it is because it is completely irrelevant to the discussion.

Same sex unions are already recognised to some extent, and the final hurdle is to recognise them within the marriage act, for amongst other things the benefit of many children born to same sex partners.

Bigamy is a criminal offense punishable by up to 5 years.
Recognised SSM does not open the door in anyway to legal recognition of:

- Bigamy
- Incest
- child marriages
- bestiality

or any other idiotic furphy you can dream up.

The sole purpose of your question is to try and muddy the waters with far fetched trivia.

I don't really understand the furphy. In NSW at least, Marriage was rendered meaningless by laws which give de Factos the same rights as married couples. So why bother getting married anyway?

Woulfe,
It seems reasonable to point out an apparent pattern of misrepresentation to put something or someone in context.
Rodney was quite happy Outing Australian Men (OAM - is this the origin of his honorific?) to advance his agenda even when those men (Graeme Murphy and Peter Sculthorpe) were surprised by his public revelation that they were homosexual and not heterosexual as they had hitherto supposed.
To his credit Rodney admitted to his mistake and apologised to them both, although why it would be necessary for him to apologise for the apparent honour he had conferred on them is unknown.
http://www.rodneycroome.id.au/comments?id=684_0_1_0_C
Rodney promised to clean up his act to restore his lost credibility but he still pushes the 10% myth.
The 10% of the population claim and the gay gene claim are just some of the distortions still used by "gay" propagandisers to advance their agenda even though they have been thoroughly discredited by reputable sources.
Or are we just supposed to swallow these untruths because to do otherwise is homophobic?

The claims about how well-liked Mr Croome is have absolutely nothing to do with equal marriage rights for same-sex couples: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8779#139285 To what extent he is supported by the "Tasmanian homosexual community" is also irrelevant to a discussion of a federal issue. None of the personal enmity here contributes to the discussion.

In addition, there are significant problems with the non-personal claims:

"Tassie has very advanced acceptance of homosexuals, the majority are happy with civil unions, giving them legitimacy." Tasmania does not have civil unions: http://www.relationshipstasmania.org.au/registrationmarriagecivilunions.html Under the Tasmanian Relationships Act, Tasmanian residents can enter into a Deed of Relationship. Since 2003, 120 couples have done so, according to the print edition of last week's Sydney Star Observer (story not available online). I'll need some help in understanding how this constitutes "the majority."

In any event, marriage falls under Commonwealth powers: http://www.aph.gov.au/SEnate/general/constitution/chapter1.htm In order for a same-sex relationship to be equal with marriage, it must be recognised as equal by the Commonwealth, not by a state. A relationship formalised with a Tasmanian Deed of Relationship attracts all the benefits received in Tasmania by married couples, but as soon as that couple crosses Bass Strait, the recognition of their relationship is determined by local state law, rather than by Commonwealth law as would be the case if they were married. In short, Commonwealth law and the laws of most other states do not recognise a couple in a Deed of Relationship: most likely they treat them as a de facto couple. Regardless of the rights it confers, state-based relationship recognition is not equality.

Damnit, let them marry. Let them call their unions, marriages.

I'll be encouraging he next generation in my family to have Christian Church Sanctioned Unions in Christian Churches who refuse to conduct gay marriages and I'll be leading the charge to have those Christian Church Sanctioned Unions legally recognised by Government alongside all the other pseudo marriages.

I don't think I'll have any problem with the wider community accepting the term Christian Church Sanctioned Unions ... or it's wider implications.

Jeez he dumber people are the dumber they and their demands become.

Very generous christian attitude, Keith.

Why thank you sparkyq. But I thought I was merely being practical and copying the actions of those who want to usurp the traditional marriage. Do you think them as generous as I ... too ... or are you being selective in your praise?

That's a remarkably small-minded couple of comments there keith - even for you.

Thank you CJ

Typical barrage of comments.

Basically, I support equal rights for homosexuals, but I don't support the naming of it as marriage.

For the simple fact, that it's just a name and it's one that the Christian lobby take seriously.

If they're going to get all worked up about it, let them have their pacifier. Provided there are legitimate equal rights within the legislation, I think it's selfish to force the naming to be equal. In making absolutely no compromise, certain extreme sections of the gay-rights lobby shoot the more pragmatic advocates in the foot by insisting on gay-marriage-or-nothing. Civil unions seems like an admirably pragmatic way forward, provided they're equal in all but name.

Oh, and Trav - like hell they haven't answered your question.
Fact is, it's been pointed out that everywhere where civil unions are banned, polygamy is allowed, and places where polygamy is permitted, civil unions are banned. It's the best possible answer to a dumb question.

You're spoiling for a fight and we all know it. There's no problem with that, but there's no basis for your extrapolations.

"Slippery slope" arguments tend to be pretty weak by nature.

As far as slippery slopes go, I could just as easily say that if we allow people to eat pigeons, they'll wind up eating dogs and babies too.

Come on Woulfe, acceptance of what someone writes is determined by the credibility of their previous writings and claims, Rodney Croome fails on all counts. He is a trouble maker, not a progressive of homosexual acceptance. Being a couple has nothing to do with being married in the eyes of a god who supposedly abhors homosexual contact. The relevant act in Tasmania describes it as equal to civil unions in many other jurisdictions, providing legality.

What's being demanded is for religion to give up it's non acceptance of homosexuals within the tenets of it's belief. Even though I am completely anti religious, I still believe they have the right to determine who they decide should receive the sacraments of marriage. There is no provision within the sacraments to declare man and man/women and women, just man and wife. A completely discriminating and suppressive ceremony, not designed for equality at all. So why would a sensible person want to be involved in that, when they have perfectly legal avenues giving them as much rights as anyone else.

Of course there's only been 120 people take this action, how many homosexuals do you think would bother when they are perfectly happy as it is. How many do you think live in Tasmania with a population of less than 500000, certainly not 10% as Croome demands and probably less than 1%. Homosexuality is reasonably accepted in Tasmania considering it is also pretty conservative in many issues. People like Croome try to make it worse with their divisive agenda's.

Did you actually read the article, stormbay?

“A 2007 poll of faith-minded Americans aged 18-35 found 80 per cent felt Christian leaders are wrongly contemptuous of gays and lesbians. A poll of the same demographic, released last month, found 55 per cent supported same-sex marriage or civil unions. It’s reasonable to assume that such figures would be even higher in Australia.”

Being “completely anti religious” could explain how out of step your views are. In future, if you want to sally forth in support of this country’s Christians, I think you should do your homework first. The Australia Institute’s 2005 study “Mapping Homophobia” http://www.tai.org.au/documents/downloads/WP79.pdf found that among Australia’s three largest Christian denominations, Catholic, Anglican and Uniting Church, only 35% regard homosexuality as immoral. Should your claims about tenets of belief requiring “non acceptance of homosexuals” be correct, then a great majority of Australian Christians aren’t following the script. Religious-based opposition to equality for same-sex-attracted Australians is dissolving – I recommend you find a new ideological flag of convenience to sail your silliness under.

I think that if we believe in equality
for all - we should allow people to make
their own choices in their human relationships.

Finding the right partner is difficult enough
in the best of times. Finding one you want to
spend the rest of your life with - is next to
impossible. And having found that partner -
who is to tell us - you can't marry because
you've made the wrong choice? They've got to
meet the following criteria ...
(Because that's what our religion tells us?)

Laws are made for all people - not merely for
some. If marriage is to be a legal institution
between two people in this country - then it
should be available to all people. Not just
a select few.

Simple really.

CJ

Why is wanting a Christian Church Sanctioned Union small minded?

Why is supporting Christian Churchs' desires to maintain and express their rather unique morality small-minded?

Why is it small minded to encourage ones children to uphold Christian morality and expression of it's traditions?

I'm at a loss CJ? ... Please explain.

I'm sorry Kieth, I think you missed the point. There are some gay christian men who would welcome a Christian Church Sanctioned Union. Why are the churches so selective in theis teachings? When was the last time you smote your neighbour for working on the Sabbeth?

The christian churches idea of morality is small minded. There are hundreds of prohibitions in both the new and old testaments to which they no longer adhere (eg Womens heads should be covered in church) but conveniently ignore.

Just because a person is homosexual does not mean they do not uphold Christian traditions or values. If I had children they would be brought up as Christian children. Being gay does not mean you are devoid of morals or spirituality. As previously stated elsewhere in these discussions, there are many long standing gay relationships as there are hetero relationships.

The author of the original article might be a radical. Most of us are not. We live in our communities and support them. Thankfully, most of my community support both my partner and me. I continue to attend church, and no one has thrown me out to date despite my open lifestyle. I live at peace with my partner and it would be truly wonderful if we could have our union blessed (and I belive it already is) in the presense of our friends and family.

Our household is not much different to anyone elses. We have our pets and animals, we go to work, share our thoughts at the end of the day and enjoy our evening meal together. At bedtime we thank God for all our blessings.

keith - Sparkyq has demonstrated, clearly from personal experience, why your approach to gay marriage is small-minded. As for this:

<< I'll be leading the charge to have those Christian Church Sanctioned Unions legally recognised by Government >>

You must be unaware that they already are, which is the point actually. In fact, I bet if the various "Christian Churches" were to Sanction Gay Unions then the government would suddenly no longer have a problem with according them the same legal status as Heterosexual Unions.

Boy oh boy

Are you both barking up the wrong tree. As usual the politically correct are trying to impose their definitions onto the rest of us.

You see my problem with gay unions becoming marriages isn't anything at all to do with morality ... as you both assume and assign incorrectly to my view. I in fact support same sex unions and accept the need for equality in all the usual social, financial and emotional aspects.

But I must add Sparyq that when you say 'Just because a person is homosexual does not mean they do not uphold Christian traditions or values' ... in regard to marriage this is dead wrong ... and really is the often unrecognised, un acknowledged or ignored crux of the debate.

You see with the pronouncements the Council of Trent in 1563 it is generally accepted that a new role was assigned to marriage, that of procreation. And the definition of procreation involves both a woman and a man.

So my position is that activists are not just demanding equality by demanding that the traditional marriage be applicable but that they are in fact attempting to re-define marriage into a much narrowerly defined institution. Thus is accomplished by excluding that part of the traditional Christian Church definition that cannot possibly apply in a union between two men or two women.

I have no problem with the re-defining of marriage if that's what our society wants and accepts, but I'd simply prefer another term that recognises the additional role of possible procreation within a union between a man and a woman.

Oh I don't think I missed any point Sparkq, and in light of my having to explain my simple reasoning I think you'd have to agree.

Of course I don't expect an apology form either of you... but it would be nice and is decent behaviour.

Why is that important, keith? Or even relevant?

Are you concerned that people might mistakenly get the wrong marriage if there isn't a specific title for male/female procreative relationships?

"Oh, no, Roger! I meant to marry a WOMAN! If only the government had told me there was a difference!"

And what about heterosexual couples that don't procreate? Do we need a special marriage category for them too?

Foxy,
<<I think that if we believe in equality
for all - we should allow people to make
their own choices in their human relationships.

Finding the right partner is difficult enough
in the best of times. Finding one you want to
spend the rest of your life with - is next to
impossible. And having found that partner>>
whether they be your mother, father, sister,
brother, son, daughter -
<<who is to tell us - you can't marry because
you've made the wrong choice? They've got to
meet the following criteria ...
(Because that's what our religion tells us?)

Laws are made for all people - not merely for
some. If marriage is to be a legal institution
between two people in this country - then it
should be available to all people>>
including incestuous couples.
<<Not just a select few.>>

Simplistic really.

OK, KMB, let's extend your "slippery slope" to some other areas.

- churches receive tax concessions, so why not give money to suicide bombers?

- Australians can drive cars on the road, so who can argue against the right to drive a tank?

- we're allowed to eat baby sheep, why not baby humans?

When you work out why you find those arguments ridiculous, you'll know why everyone else finds yours ridiculous.

Dear KMB,

Jesus loves you.
(everyone else thinks you're an asshole).

keith: << So my position is that activists are not just demanding equality by demanding that the traditional marriage be applicable but that they are in fact attempting to re-define marriage into a much narrowerly defined institution. >>

No keith, you've got it arse-up (so to speak). Rodney Croome is arguing that the legal definition of marriage should be broadened to include gays. Sparkyq seems to want the Christian definition to be broadened to include gays. You're arguing for the retention in law of a particularly narrow view of the Christian form of marriage.

You're not stupid, so you're either being obtuse or disingenuous.

Incidentally, 'marriage' wasn't invented by Christians.

Foxy

Best laugh I've had all day and its only 9.00 AM!

CJ, you stole my thunder: Christians did not invent marriage nor do they hold any patent over it - therefore Keith and KMB get over it and find something worthwhile to do instead of imagining what consenting adults do to each other in private.

Foxy. You're sounding more like Col every day. Keep up the good work!

Phanto;

'There are a great many people who are married who are definitely not ‘couples’ and there are a great many people who are not married or do not have their relationship ‘sanctioned’ in anyway who definitely are couples.'

Exactly.

I'm all for this gay marriage as it would allow the guvment to let us poor defactos stay defactos. Why is it so hard? Hetero or same sex marriage can get married if they want in the eyes of government, or stay defacto if they want (keeping their future finances independent if they're childless) , and the churches can allow or not allow SS marriage ( I don't really care)

Dear Houellebecq,

Thanks.

But I can't really take all the credit -
I got it off a bumper-sticker - it made
me laugh as well, and I thought it appropriate
to use here to make light of KMB's "religious
stance," on things and his attempt
at distorting what I had posted previously.

Glad to see that you're keeping tabs though!

CJ

How exactly is excluding the Christian value of procreation within a marriage broadening the definition of marriage?

Doesn't it follow that by including homosexual people within a marriage definition it does exactly that?

Or is it that you want a definition of marriage to include both the christian value and the desire of equality for homosexual activitists?

That'd be a tad silly now wouldn't it and would only highlight the obvious difference/inequality?

Fractelle and CJ can you both point to where I've said christians invented marriage?

You'll both find if you re-read my posts that all I've said is Christians added procreation to their meaning of marriage ... and that reflected their morality.

That is exactly what the activists are doing today and if the community accepts that ... then that's ok by me but I would then want a definition acceptable to me and consistant my values to be also recognised ... even if it must be by another name.

And if you're both going to be consistant and logical you'd support my endeavour.

I don't think keith realises how ludicrous his argument is to people who think rationally. Personally, I couldn't be bothered spelling it out again.

Foxy nailed it, I reckon.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8779#139760

Foxy,
<<Jesus loves you.
(everyone else thinks you're an asshole).>>
<<I thought it appropriate
to use here to make light of KMB's "religious
stance," on things>>
I don't mind ad hominem attacks because those who use them usually don't have much of an argument.
However I'm not sure that calling someone what you called me on a public forum could be defined as "making light of".
I guess we each have our standards.
I'm further guessing that you'd describe your gold standard as tolerance.
Never mind.
As for my "religious stance on things", I'm sure you know what you mean but it sounds like stereotyping to me.
But tolerant people like you aren't guilty of stereotyping so I must be wrong again.

Fractelle,
I don't need to "imagin(e) what consenting adults do to each other in private" because my kids get taught about deviant behaviour in Sexual Diversity Indoctrination 101 at primary school and they come home and tell me all abour it.
Isn't it marvellous that the progressive education system ensures that little kiddies are informed that anal sex between men is just as normal and just as natural as, aaahh, normal and natural sex.
Who'd have thought?

Dear KMB,

May I suggest that you go back and re-read some
of your own posts on this thread - then try
speaking about tolerance again with a straight
face.

What is happening in our society is an increasing
toleration for a variety of alternative marriage and
family styles. The reasons are linked to economic
and cultural diversity, combined with a highly
developed sense of individualism. In this environment
people tend to make decisions about marriage, divorce,
abortion, child-rearing, and the like in terms of
what they, personally want - rather than in terms of
traditional moralities, obligations to kin, or the
other impersonal pressures that previous generations
unquestioningly accepted.

You talk about stereotyping - but as your posts indicate -
you're doing exactly that, by referring to couples (who
you don't know), as "incestuous,"
because their life-style differs
from what you find as acceptable, in terms of your
values.

It's allright for you to bandy terms about and sling
mud at people, but when someone else tries to turn
the tables on you, and give you a dose of your own
medicine, that's too much for you to take.

If you can dish it out - you should be able to take it.

Cheers.

<”Being “completely anti religious” could explain how out of step your views are. In future, if you want to sally forth in support of this country’s Christians, I think you should do your homework first.”>

Woulfe, I am certainly not supporting christians, just saying it's their ceremony, so let them have it and if your homosexual, undergo a state civil service or accepted agreement. From July centrelink will accept civil state unions and de facto homosexual relationships in determining next of kin and benefits. This is no different from everyone else, so the push for religious weddings against the tenets of the church, is a fracturing ideological push, not equality or human rights. What has USA statistics to do with Aus, the USA is so mentally disturbed and violently dysfunctional, any example is doomed to end up as they are.

Relying on a law made 500 years ago is not a progressive sign, but a primitive outlook and poor excuse. As pointed out, homosexual couples are no different to others. When you look at the huge amount of dysfunctional heterosexual relationships in this country, there is no argument as to their standing, they are on the same par. The only problem I have with homosexual relationships is having children, as I believe children should have equal association with both biological parents in their upbringing and that goes for single mothered or fathered families as well. No matter how well they operate, how balanced they are and how loving they are, when you deal with the later consequences of them, you see both approaches have long term detrimental outcomes for many offspring of single sex upbringing of all persuasions.

Foxy,
I'll try to keep it simple.
There are people out there now fighting for incestuous rights.
You talk about an "increasing toleration for a variety of alternative marriage and family styles."
On what basis do you exclude incestuous couples?
In this "environment of cultural diversity, combined with a highly developed sense of individualism" why don't you allow that incestuous couples "make (their own) decisions about marriage, divorce, abortion, child-rearing, and the like in terms of what they, personally want - rather than in terms of (your) morality, obligations to kin, or the other impersonal pressures".
Why do you "unquestioningly accept" that they be excluded from your brave new world.
The reason of course is that you can't justify your position rationally.
You can only parrot inclusion and diversity while actually limiting it to your own unquestioned standards.
I'm not "referring to couples (who I don't know), as "incestuous, "because their life-style differs from what I find as acceptable, in terms of my values".
I'm only saying that your muddled thinking stops you from including them along with any other couple.
In terms of being able to take what I dish out I don't recall ever calling you an ---hole, but if I did I apologise.

CJ

Your last post only highlights the bankruptcy of your thoughts.

Rather than 'spell it all out', which btw you haven't yet, why don't you just answer my simple couple of questions?

And while you are at it why not try to admit, at the very least to yourself, you've constantly assigned values and statements to me that are just not true.

You've throughout this 'debate' merely heaped scorn and derision onto me, all of it uncalled for, and you've never once addressed the concerns and issues I've raised ... Like I have yours ... and you reckoned I am small-minded. Ha!

I love a good exchange of ideas, and truly, I'd be delighted to hear some solid arguments challenging my view that nothing less than full equality for same-sex-attracted people is good enough.

However they're not to be found here. So far, the opponents of same-sex marriage have come up with:

Some criminals are also gay
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8779#139181

Rodney Croome made a factual error in his blog once
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8779#139317

An organisation of which Rodney Croome is a member had an inaccurate statistic in one of its press releases
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8779#139251

Marriage is a religious institution
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8779#139204

Same-sex marriage will lead to bigamy/polygamy
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8779#139221

If you can marry your partner of choice then you’ll be able to marry your first-degree relatives
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8779#139742

Some homosexuals have children
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8779#139846

It amazes me that once the discussion turns to same-sex-attracted people, otherwise well-meaning intelligent human beings completely abandon all compassion, fairness and intellectual rigour. Rather than disputing our right to equality on its own merit, the opponents of equality are only capable of raising false claims and irrelevant straw issues. They attempt to discredit us by associating gay people with every other thing they find personally distasteful. They try to exclude us from civil rights by making claims about marriage that simply aren't true ('marriage is a religious institution'). They justify withholding rights from same-sex-attracted people with attacks on one gay individual.

The issue of same-sex marriage will be decided solely on its own merits, not on the basis of all the irrelevant distractions and lies that its opponents raise against it. My best advice to the opponents of same-sex marriage is to carry on undeterred. As we've seen with the superbly silly "National Organisation for Marriage" campaign in the US, no-one discredits the case against same-sex marriage quite as well as the people arguing it: http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/224789/april-16-2009/the-colbert-coalition-s-anti-gay-marriage-ad

(and take a look at some of the other parodies here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0pPEAdDn64 )

Dear KMB,

I'll also try to keep it simple.

I did not call you an "A - hole."
I don't know you that well.
I merely took a bumper sticker -
that said, "Jesus Loves You.
(everyone else thinks you're an asshole)."
It was a response to your posts of "righteous indignation,"
against same-sex couples.
It was meant to be funny, not insulting.
And I then went on to explain - the changing alternative
lifestyles of our society. Where in the future - we won't
even have to have discussions like this one, because
lifestyle choices will be something that will be taken
for granted.

I'll end with another quote for you to think about:

"Toleration is the positive and cordial effort to
understand another's beliefs, practices and habits..."

Toleration is the key, not condemnation.

Cheers.

Foxy,
I'll take your silence on incest to mean that you concede my point.
Moving on,
"Toleration is the positive and cordial effort to
understand another's beliefs, practices and habits..."
You omitted the last part of Liebman's quote...
"without necessarily sharing or accepting them."
...which altogether changes things, don't you think?
I simply don't share the belief that homosexual "marriage" is normal, natural and acceptable,
just like you don't accept incest.
I also don't believe that the line I draw is as arbitrary as the line you draw.

Incest is illegal under Australian law. Homosexuality isn't.

While of course it's an arbitrary line, it's one that's enshrined in legislation.

The question is of course why perfectly legal homosexual partnerships are still not able to be accorded the status of marriages in Australian law.

And keith - Australian marriage law does not require its subjects to be able to procreate.

CJ Morgan,
So finally we have an admission that “of course it's an arbitrary line” between legalising homosexuality and legalising incest.
Clarity at last.
But then we lapse into more muddled thinking...
The legality of homosexuality is “enshrined in legislation.”
And then….
“Australian marriage law does not require its subjects to be able to procreate.”
But Australian marriage law does require its subjects to be a man and a woman!
Repeating for clarification…
The status of marriage as being between a man and a woman is “enshrined in legislation.”
Just what are you “progressives” thinking when you’re trying to make your points?

The impact of homosexual “marriage” (SSM):

Children will be indoctrinated from the earliest age that marriage between two men or women is exactly the same as marriage between a man and a woman.
Parents will be persecuted if they object to this indoctrination.
Children will be deliberately adopted into SSM’s and will never have the hope of the normal development provided by exposure to a mother and a father.
Adoption agencies which believe that this is against the best interests of the children in their care will be forced to close down.
Children will be artificially produced for deliberate placement into SSM’s and will never have the hope of the normal development provided by exposure to a mother and a father. Additionally these children will never get the chance to know who their biological father or mother is.
Ultimately anyone who argues that this may not be in the best interest of children will be criminalised for “hate” speech.
All of the above are already happening in the “free” world.
What sort of brave new world are you people fighting for?
When balancing the rights of children, who have no choice, against those of homosexual activists many will come to the decision that the children should come first.
This is expressing a reasonable concern.
It is not homophobia or religious fundamentalism.

For a secular-based argument against SSM:
http://www.marriageinstitute.ca/images/somerville.pdf
“Gays Against GayMarriage”:
http://nogaymarriage.wordpress.com/

I think if we're honest here for a second, the debate really comes down to this: The pro-SSM people are not really interested in total equality. They're just interested in having their own world-views incorporated into the current discriminatory laws. (and I'm not saying "discriminatory" to imply a bad thing, just the fact that the laws are specific in their nature.) Of course, such an argument is not particularly compelling if you're not already a pro-SSM, so then calls for "equality", "fairness", and "tolerance", etc. are used instead. KMB and Keith are simply poking holes in this line of argument, and all the pro-SSM are getting defensive because there really is no way to rationally defend those principles and still keep the argument on the same terms.

The anti-SSM people in turn are not really interested, on the whole, in preserving tradition, religious institutions, etc (I don't see the same fervour applied to de-facto relationships, pre-marital sex, and Sunday trading for example). They really just don't like homosexual behaviour and would prefer it to just go away. It's hard to effectively argue this way in public, so we then have the "slippery slope", "tradition", and "poke holes" (see above) arguments. And then the anti-SSM get defensive when their hypocrisy is exposed.

The interesting thing here, though, is that the pro-SSM don't really have the numbers yet for their world-view, and so to get the numbers they invoke political correctness to shut down the opposition (as in the recent Miss USA California), present media images (sitcoms, movies, etc) depicting pro-gay lifestyles, and lobby government officials to enshrine SSM in spite of the view of the majority of their constituents. It's just what they do.

The anti-SSM are on the back foot. They're forced to invoke some disingenuous religious tradition and try to enshrine heterosexual marriage into law and constitutions while they still have the numbers.

Who will win? The pro-SSM will probably win because they have control of the media and can effectively silence debate better than the anti-SSM.

Roy

Dear KMB,

You seem to have missed the point again, that
I was trying to make.

With the Joshua Loth Liebman's quote - I deliberately
left out the last part because the point was, as
I stressed to you -"toleration," not condemnation.

I was not asking you "to necessarily share or
even accept other life styles -
simply make a positive and cordial effort to understand
and tolerate, not condemn."
Not difficult really, to grasp, I would have thought.

Have a nice day.

Roy said - They're just interested in having their own world-views incorporated into the current discriminatory laws.

I think that is what many say they want but what they really want is more and more recognition of their own lifestyle because they are not entirely at peace with it themselves. Why seek the acceptance of other people when you do not need it?

They may well be discriminated against in this particular case but so what? What advantage is their in having the right to something that has no intrinsic value anyway? Homosexual people should be campaigning alongside heterosexual people to remove all unnecessary government intervention in their relationships. Where there are issues relating to property or insurance and the like we should all be seeking a better solution to the problem than having to define relationships according to the sexual behaviour of the people involved.

Homosexual people should be fighting for that rather than same sex marriage. That would solve their problem and the problem for many heterosexual people as well. It seems however that many are not as interested in solving that problem as much as they are about pushing the value of their behaviour. If their behaviour is equal in all ways to heterosexual behaviour then who are they trying to convince? There is no need to convince anyone unless it is to try and get something worthwhile that you have a right to but do not possess.

Raising the issue of same sex marriage as an issue of discrimination can be a way of trying to make others feel guilty because no one wants to be seen as someone who discriminates. To try and make someone feel guilty when there is no real cause for guilt is a bullying tactic. Homosexual people who resort to this do their cause no favours.

I admire your chutzpah, KMB. You say to CJ Morgan, "So finally we have an admission that “of course it's an arbitrary line” between legalising homosexuality and legalising incest. Clarity at last", but you have conspicuously failed to answer my previous questions (forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8779&page=0#139751), which apply the same facile non-logic that underpins your "slippery slope" argument. It screams loud and clear that you know there is no reasonable basis for your claim, and that you are unable to defend it against enquiry.

Roy, you wrote "Who will win? The pro-SSM will probably win because they have control of the media and can effectively silence debate better than the anti-SSM."

I'm reminded of Andy Schlafly's claim that he founded Conservapedia to combat the liberal bias of Wikipaedia. Wikipedia, of course, is edited by the public, and reflects the public's views, which are predominantly liberal - or at least more liberal than the traditional Right would like to acknowledge.

The same applies to SSM. There is no silencing of debate. There are simply so few people supporting discrimination against homosexuals that their views get less coverage than the reasonable majority's.

You are good with the red herrings, KMB.
Your piece with "The Impact of Homosexual Marraige (SSM)" cracked me up. Now we have "the indoctrination of children". This is patent nonsense. Children through their own life experiences at school and social groups will quickly realise the difference between male/female and SS couples. Being brought up in a SS environment will not make the children "gay".

How many children are there in Australia being raised by a single parent and "will never have the hope of the normal development provided exposure to a mother and father"?

"Children will be artificially produce for deliberate placement into SSM's....." - This is just so stupid it doesn't warrant a comment.

Do you know how difficult it is for a couple to adopt a child in this day and age?

There are also many Australian children who, for one reason or another, will never get to know one or the other biological parent.

After having met a lot of "families" by way of my job, I can assure you my partner and I would do a much better job at parenting and caring for a child than some of the "couples" out there. Why else do we need Child Protection Agencies?

Stick to the issue KMB

Sancho and Sparkyq are just illustrating my point perfectly in their last comments. The responses are poorly argued, have logic errors, and are on the whole emotive. KMB and co. will easily shoot down their arguments, but so what? As I implied earlier, and as phanto explored in his response, pro-SSM are really just trying to extend the covering of acceptability on to their lifestyle. No more. No less. And anti-SSM are just saying, "No, it's not acceptable."

Sancho seems to think there's no silencing of debate and the media are reflecting rather than influencing society's values. This kind of thinking indicates the kind of pro-SSM who thinks they can win their rights *fairly*, that their cause is the epitome of logic and common sense. That's just not the reality that I see. The reality is that pro-SSM will win in a somewhat underhanded, authoritarian way. Lots of indoctrination and associated punishment is in our present and future. HR policies, school curriculums, hate-speech laws, affirmative-action-type laws, gay-only relationship movies, and sitcoms, etc, will be how this *natural* lifestyle will become *naturally* accepted.

I just would like each side of the argument to accept the real situation here.

Roy

Roy,
You're perfectly correct of course.
SSM proponents can only win by shutting down debate and propagandising.
Hence the homophobe epithet, the push for “hate crimes” legislation and the 10% of the population
and gay gene myths, etc.

Sparkyq,
<<Being brought up in a SS environment will not make the children "gay">>
“a significantly greater proportion of young adult children raised by lesbians had engaged in a same-sex relationship (six of 25 interviewed) than those raised by a heterosexual mother (none of 20 interviewed).”
http://www.narth.com/docs/does.html

From the same meta-analysis of 21 studies since 1980 by two University of Southern California sociologists:

“sons of lesbians behave in less traditionally masculine ways”
“Those raised by lesbian mothers were also more likely to consider a homosexual relationship”
“Teen-age and young adult girls raised by lesbian mothers appear to be more sexually adventurous and less chaste than girls raised by heterosexual mothers”

Unsurprisingly, the professor of gender studies who authored the report had no problem with these outcomes.

<<How many children are there in Australia being raised by a single parent and "will never have the hope of the normal development provided (sic) exposure to a mother and father"?>>
<< There are also many Australian children who, for one reason or another, will never get to know one or the other biological parent.>>
These sub-optimum situations are usually not, and should not be, deliberately created. Every child deserves the best chance.

<<"Children will be artificially produce (sic) for deliberate placement into SSM's....." - This is just so stupid it doesn't warrant a comment.>>
You’ve never heard of SSCouples utilising IVF?

<<… I can assure you my partner and I would do a much better job at parenting and caring for a child than some of the "couples" out there. Why else do we need Child Protection Agencies?>>
We should allow SSParenting because at least it’s better than abusive situations?

<< Stick to the issue KMB >>
Are you suggesting that SSM can be separated from its impact on children?
That’s what you’d like the naïve to think.

Don’t obscure the real issue Sparkyq.

I’ll need to see a lot of evidence before I can believe the claim that the gay rights lobby is shutting down debate on same-sex marriage. And should this evidence appear, it will need to account for the following:

The opponents of equal rights for homosexuals get considerable media exposure:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/the-archbishop-says-no-to-reforms/2008/06/10/1212863623804.html
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,24850261-7583,00.html
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/choice-not-condoms-make-the-difference-with-aids-20090417-aa4u.html (the reference here is to “the sexual revolution” rather than specifically same-sex marriage)
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/12/23/2453837.htm

Adele Horin’s piece on the Pope’s December outburst seems like an exception to me:
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/its-time-to-sing-out-if-youre-gay-catholic---and-angry-20081226-75ik.html
All too often, the supporters of gay marriage are relegated to the novelty or humour pages:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/western-society-my-gay-weddings-role-in-its-downfall/2007/09/20/1189881678755.html

Many media outlets are willing to pander to anti-gay attitudes in order to build a story:
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,25168796-5006022,00.html However important stories about relationship rights, like Labor’s plans for state-based “separate-but-equal” civil unions (the subject of the article we’re discussing here) don’t appear. George Pell can get a feature article in the Sydney Morning Herald, but Rodney Croome is writing on Online Opinion.

Finally, the most compelling evidence that the debate is not being shut down lies in the fact that individuals are able to anonymously post here all sorts of calumny and misinformation http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8779#139868 against homosexuals. I cannot possibly be the only person who thinks it's pathetic when adults engaged in a debate whinge "but we're not being allowed to debate!"

Calling disagreement censorship, bullying, or an attempt to shut down the debate is simply a transparent ruse to divert attention from the underlying lack of substance.

Roy, did you consider the irony when you logged onto a public discussion site to declare you're being prevented from expressing your views publicly? You're being silenced, and you're shouting it from the rooftops!

Pick up a copy of The Australian or Quadrant. Their editorial policies are explicitly anti-gay. Apparently the gay lobby is so effective at stifling debate that the country's national paper will give a column to Christopher Pearson.

Show us this repression. Give a specific example. Better yet, explain how this powerful gay lobby gained control of the media and government.

Either there's a massive, well-organised homosexual conspiracy to silence your opinions and gay-ify our society, or you're simply being ignored because most Australians disagree with you. Which do you think is more likely?

KMB, I must thank you for introducing me to NARTH. "Homophobia" is such an overused term that it's refreshing to be reminded that some people are genuinely terrified by homosexuals.

And what does NARTH's rigorous and disinterested cherry-picking of someone else's research show? That children are likely to adopt the views and politics of their parents? What a revelation!

It's another red herring though, because your argument relies on the assumption that homosexuals harm society, which you have not only failed to prove, but failed to even argue. If you had some evidence you'd put it up, but you haven't. You're like an astronomer beginning a thesis with "Obviously, the moon is made of cheese. Therefore..."

You don't have to like homosexuals, but you have no grounds to deny them full participation in society. I'd be angry and disappointed if a child of mine became a Christian, but I wouldn't try to make churches illegal.

And KMB, you're still dodging my question about the slippery slope. I put it to you that you're afraid to defend your argument because you don't even believe it yourself. Prove me wrong.

KMB

You are concerned that SS couples will pass on their 'traits' if permitted to raise children.

When are you going do to something about all those heterosexual couples who give birth to gays?

According to research the first and second born children (of the same sex) are likely to be straight, but third born siblings (of the same sex) have a greater chance to be gay. This means if you are the third born in a family with siblings of the same sex as you, you could be homosexual.

If I am not making myself clear please read link below:

http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12465295

Therefore, stop blaming gays for the accident of their birth, but ban all those breeding hetero couples - its all their fault.

“Are you suggesting that SSM can be separated from its impact on children?
That’s what you’d like the naïve to think.

Don’t obscure the real issue Sparkyq.”

The real issue is misrepresentation of the facts. KMB you fail to take the entire article you linked to into consideration, nor do you understand the psychology and are typically trying to protect your ideological stance. Children brought up in a bakery or hotel, are more likely to chose those occupations and social orientation in life differently to those brought up in a builders, artist, doctor or radicals house.

You can't change a persons sexual or any other orientation, some people float in between and others experiment. But you are either homosexual, or you are not. There are psychological outcomes from being involved with a homosexual relationship, just as there are with heterosexual. It's those outside the relationships which have the biggest problems, beyond what you'd find in any household in the world.

We all suffer psychological problems from upbringing, only fools would state you only need one sex to bring up children. And only fools would say it can't be done without both sexes, it's approach which has the best outcomes and consideration for the child's feelings which is paramount.

Fractelle, "If I am not making myself clear please read link below:

http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12465295 "

Where did the article or the research make anything 'clear'? There is no proof of anything from what I read, just possibles for further research and who knows what the results might be?

Or do you agree for instance that gay men and women are neurotic and there is a purpose in that?

woulfe

So you really feel that there is *no* pressure within the mainstream media to suppress anti-SSM sentiment? I was not trying to say there was suppression of coverage of SSM. There's plenty of it. But it is all written a certain way that is ultimately beneficial for the SSM cause. I read the articles you referred to. e.g. "The archbishop says no" article on first glance appears a bit anti-gay. But as you read it, the author goes on to frame the issue in a way that marginalised the archbishop and ultimately present the SSM movement in a positive light.

"Critics of Benedict misheard the Pope" starts out with an anti-gay type theme but ultimately the author convinces us that the Pope wasn't talking about gays in the case in question, and if he was, "then any humane individual would have had good cause to be outraged."

Every article referenced is ultimately pro-gay. But there's another aspect to it. These types of articles, including the "novelty" ones, keep the issue in people's consciousness, and this familiarity with the topic also serves to break down barriers.

I don't see any evidence of a mainstream media article that is authored by someone who appears unsympathetic to the SSM cause, though I'm sure there's one out there somewhere. :) Control the media and you ultimately control the issue.

Sancho, you said, "Either there's a massive, well-organised homosexual conspiracy to silence your opinions and gay-ify our society, or you're simply being ignored because most Australians disagree with you. Which do you think is more likely?" Um, this is what is called a false dichotomy. Why are these the only two choices?
There doesn't have to be a massive, well-organised conspiracy to see bias in media coverage.

Oh, and though I thought it was obvious, this website could hardly be considered mainstream media in the same way as the nation's newspapers and TV stations.

Roy

Cornflower

Satire, mate, satire.

All this carry on about SS couples raising children as if it is somehow bad for children. I was simply trying to point out that homosexuals are born into heterosexual families, that homosexuals (and bisexuals) are born not 'made'. Therefore, I was challenging those who become so irate about homosexuality that if they were serious about eradicating it they should start with the heterosexual couples who give birth to gays in the first place. Or accept that homosexuality occurs naturally throughout the animal world and let them live in peace.

Really, Roy? If you're not arguing for a gay conspiracy, then why do you believe media coverage is biased?

What Roy says about the media coverage highlights the lack of intellectual integrity that even the mainstream media are guilty of in this case. There is no rigorous debate of the issues where logic and reason are explored.

Homosexual people want equal rights to heterosexual people and they may well deserve them but they have to put forward a compelling argument for those rights. They have to show exactly how their behaviour is equal in all regards to heterosexual behaviour. They have to show that it is as logical and natural as heterosexual behaviour. If they want society to recognize their sexuality as equal to heterosexuality then they must show why it is. The media does not seem to make these demands on them in the same way they would with other groups who demand equal rights.

You cannot just say I indulge in homosexual behaviour and therefore I have the same rights as people who indulge in heterosexual behaviour and you have to give them to me or else you are discriminating against me. Everyone has to give reasons for their behaviour if they need to change society or else we would have to give everyone whatever they wanted without question.

There is irrefutable proof that heterosexual behaviour has, at least in five billion cases, been logical and reasonable. There is no such proof for homosexual behaviour and until there is it cannot be considered as equal.

The media should be asking these questions and not just responding to objections from church leaders or red-neck groups. Just because their objections are not reasonable does not necessarily mean that the claims of the homosexual lobby are reasonable. The media could show some leadership in promoting genuine debate on the topic based on the same criteria that they expect in other debates

Why equality? At first glance this looks like a very good question.

"Homosexual people want equal rights to heterosexual people and they may well deserve them but they have to put forward a compelling argument for those rights."

What equal rights apply to is people: essentially, the question is, do people deserve equal rights? Do equal rights devolve on all who are people, by virtue of their people-ness? Or is there some test that certain people must pass in order to establish that they deserve equal rights? To illustrate the point, let's remove 'homosexual' and 'heterosexual' from the statement, and try replacing them with a few other adjectives.

"Blue-eyed people want equal rights to brown-eyed people and they may well deserve them but they have to put forward a compelling argument for those rights."

"Aboriginal people want equal rights to non-indigenous people and they may well deserve them but they have to put forward a compelling argument for those rights."

"Common people want equal rights to the nobility and they may well deserve them but they have to put forward a compelling argument for those rights."

For most of human history, these statements have in practice been true. But today we have embraced the Enlightenment principles of liberty, equality and fraternity: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal," wrote Thomas Jefferson, in one of humanity's most important documents.

Adopting these principles requires of us that we actually treat people equally. It places the burden of proof on those removing or denying a right, rather than on those attempting to gain their rights. It requires you, phanto, to establish a compelling reason why homosexuals should have fewer rights than heterosexuals. We are, after all, people.

Accepting that blue-eyed, working class, left-handed or black people have equal rights because they are people, while arguing that homosexuals should have to prove that they deserve them, is at best disingenuous, and at worst ... well, I'll leave that up to others.

It's an example of wanting to have your cake and eat it too.

Good one Fractelle ... lets only allow homosexual couples to reproduce. And Fractelle I have not seen anyone on this thread suggest Homosexual people shouldn't be let to live in peace.

Perhaps you might suggest they leave alone to live in peace all those practising hetrosexuals who have embraced the christian concept of marriage.

Keith

Please explain, with evidence, how homosexuals marrying, disturbs the peace of christian heterosexual married couples.

woulfe,
Right on!

woulfe
"Incestuous people want equal rights to non-incestuous people and they may well deserve them but they have to put forward a compelling argument for those rights."

I don't think CJ's response to the linking of incest with homosexuality was difficult to understand, but it was short, and possibly easily overlooked: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8779#139909

To expand on it a little ...

1. incest is an illegal act, homosexual sex is not
2. rights devolve to (or are denied to) human beings, not to acts
3. people are not born with a sexual preference for their first-degree relatives (at least, I'm not aware of any research that has revealed such a sexual preference, or any individuals who claim one)
4. Australians who are born with a preference for sexual partners of their own sex constitute a class which is currently denied the right to marry their partner of choice
5. following from 3, there is not a class of incestuously oriented people to grant (or deny) rights to, in the same way there are classes of left-handed people, indigenous people, and homosexuals.

The most common instances of incest are truly horrific crimes, where a parent or close relative exploits a power differential to sexually abuse a younger and/or weaker family member. Homosexuals are naturally and justifiably offended when others attempt to derail discussions by associating us with these crimes.

Maybe we can now go back to discussing civil unions vs. same-sex marriage.

Woulfe – you cannot claim equal rights to everything just because you are a human being. I cannot just turn up at an exclusive golf club and demand the right to play just because I am a person. The right to play there belongs only to members. I can’t just take a front row seat at the opera simply because I am a human being - it is a right that belongs only to those who have paid for it. These restrictions to my rights are reasonable.

Each case must be judged on its merits and rights are granted or denied according to reason and logic. Homosexual people want certain rights that they do not have. It is not unreasonable to ask them to show why they should be granted and if they have good reasons then it should not be too hard to explain them. Heterosexual people already have those rights – how they came to get them or whether or not they deserve them is irrelevant. The fact is that homosexual people have to have a good argument as to why they are entitled to these same rights.

It has nothing to do with the intrinsic rights of anyone. It is not saying anything about their worth as a human being. It is a simple question. Why do you think that you are entitled to the same rights that are granted to heterosexual married couples?

To say that all men are created equal does not mean that all men are entitled to whatever they want.

sancho,

I don't know *why* the media is biased, but that doesn't change the fact that it *is*. There are many things in life one can observe without understanding the underlying explanation.

Anyway...

phanto makes some interesting points in relation to the pro-SSM group making a solid philosophical case for SSM. But I go back to my original post. The pro-SSM just want what they want. They're not really interested in the full ramifications of the principles they espouse. Anti-SSM are the same. Even if a solid case could be put forward for SSM, most anti-SSM would still refuse to conceed the issue.

Unfortunately, such entrenched ideological conflicts are usually "solved" by violence in one form or another. War is unlikely in this case of course ;) But tough laws that force desired behaviour are common. These laws used to be on the side of the heterosexual, but that tide is steadily turning.

woulfe, I enjoy your responses. They appear reasonable and thoughtful. I do think that KMB's incest argument is not very fair, but it brings out a broader point: the anti-SSM, in their heart of hearts, are just as against homosexual behaviour as they are against ssm. So while you say that homosexuality is not illegal, I would venture to say that anti-SSM would think that it should be. So the legality/illegality angle is probably not a good starting point for your argument, because on that basis, you should not have been granted the rights you already have (as at one time homosexuality *was* illegal in Australia).

Roy

Woulfe,
"1. incest is an illegal act, homosexual sex is not"
A. You use the law to bolster your case when it suits you but challenge the law
(marriage is between a man and a woman) when it doesn't.

"2. rights devolve to (or are denied to) human beings, not to acts"
B. Incestuous couples are human beings.

"3. people are not born with a sexual preference for their first-degree relatives (at least, I'm not aware of any research that has revealed such a sexual preference, or any individuals who claim one)"
C. You imply that homosexuals are, which has been thoroughly refuted. Even Peter Tatchell admits this now.
Refer "Gene Genie":
http://www.petertatchell.net/gay%20gene/gene%20genie.htm
Refer also Dr Francis S Collins, former head of the human genome project:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1801869/posts

"4. Australians who are born with a preference for sexual partners of their own sex constitute a class which is currently denied the right to marry their partner of choice"
D. You use the false "born with a preference" premise discredited in C.

5. following from 3, there is not a class of incestuously oriented people to grant (or deny) rights to, in the same way there are classes of left-handed people, indigenous people, and homosexuals.
E. Following from C, your statement has no validity. Indigenous people cannot change their race which they genetically inherited but homosexuals can change their sexual orientation (refer below) which they did not genetically inherit.

"While many mental health care providers and professional associations have expressed considerable skepticism that sexual orientation could be changed with psychotherapy and also assumed that therapeutic attempts at reorientation would produce harm, recent empirical evidence demonstrates that homosexual orientation can indeed be therapeutically changed in motivated clients, and that reorientation therapies do not produce emotional harm when attempted"
Essential Psychopathology and Its Treatment,
Jerrold S. Maxmen & Nicholas G. Ward, 2009 edn,
W.W. Norton & Company, p. 488

At the risk of being drawn into a prolonged discussion..

KMB, C has not been "thoroughly refuted" at all. There are many more theories on the biological basis of sexual orientation than heritable genetic control. I would agree that inherited genetic orientation (the "gay gene") is highly unlikely, but a biological basis for phenomena such as brain feminisation and sexual orientation and behaviour is still yet to be properly investigated (eg brain structure, neurohormonal influences etc). The major problem lies in measuring such things as hormonal changes in the womb (or indeed a combination of any number of factors such as diet, lifestyle factors etc) and following them through to a measurement of sexual orientation in adult individuals.

As for "homosexual orientation can indeed be therapeutically changed in motivated clients", yes I believe this could possibly be the case as human beings are strange creatures and can override instinctual behaviours consciously. For example, while born with survival instincts and a predilection for self preservation, can be convinced to go to war or to strap a high explosive device to themselves and kill themselves for no good reason other than a promise of an unknown afterlife.

"3. people are not born with a sexual preference for their first-degree relatives (at least, I'm not aware of any research that has revealed such a sexual preference, or any individuals who claim one)"
C. You imply that homosexuals are, which has been thoroughly refuted. Even Peter Tatchell admits this now.
Refer "Gene Genie":
Refer also Dr Francis S Collins, former head of the human genome project

"4. Australians who are born with a preference for sexual partners of their own sex constitute a class which is currently denied the right to marry their partner of choice"
D. You use the false "born with a preference" premise discredited in C.

Not discredited at all, we are psychologically born with our sexual preferences, as with all aspects of life, they are in varying degree's. If you read all of Peter Tachell, you will find he agrees.

Francis S Collins, is a right wing christian creationist and must deny anything not fitting into his demands. So you couldn't believe anything he says on this subject.

This is a moral issue, nothing else. It's nothing to do with biology or physiology it revolves around moral stances, every culture and society has morals it enforces to maintain control and in every culture they are different. Ethically speaking there's nothing wrong with homosexual or incestuous mating, it's seen throughout nature, again in varying degrees. You also see it deeply entrenched within all religions, only mating with those of the same belief, church, culture, tribe, town, region, state, country or a distant relative.

If you have an ideological agenda, you can look at it any way you like, but it doesn't make you right in the eyes of natural reality. Just biased, discriminatory and prejudiced.

KMB, Why do you have such an obscession with incest?

KMB,

The theory that people are born homosexual has not been discredited.

As realisation of sexuality does not generally surface until the early teens, it is difficult to determine whether it is congential or environmental.

However, if it were environmental, therapy would have a reasonable chance of success to "cure". As therapy has very little success, there is a strong inference that it is congential.

However, as there has not been found any one smoking gun the debate is still open.

The single feature that by the teens the sexuality is pretty much permanent, and as such the definition of your sexuality should not have any bearing on your rights as a human being any more than if you were missing a leg.

Anyone who discriminates on race or gender is a bigot.

When talking about civil rights, it must be easy to confuse a right with a licence, because it seems to happen very often. In the golf club example, the rights extend only to equal access to membership, to getting in the front door, if you like. I can't be prevented from joining the golf club because I am homosexual, but the club will not grant me a licence to use its facilities unless I can meet its legally permitted conditions of membership, such as membership fees, code of conduct, residence restrictions, etc.

In the case of marriage, I am 'stopped at the door.' Opposite-sex couples have the opportunity to show that they meet the conditions for marriage: giving notice, paying fees, nominating an authorised celebrant: http://www.ag.gov.au/www/agd/agd.nsf/Page/MarriageGetting_Married However since 2004, the federal government has discriminated against me in a way that is illegal for any other non-religious organisation (except in Tasmania http://onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=8656 ).

Marriage was not officially defined in Australia until 2004, when, under pressure from the Christian right, the government inserted the current sex-based definition: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/05/27/1085461876842.html I’m not so much challenging a law as seeking to restore the damage that was done five years ago.

On sites like narth.com and "Americans for Truth about Homosexuality" http://snipurl.com/gw7v3 there is no shortage of people claiming that (a) homosexuality is a pathology that (b) can be 'cured.' This claim has been dealt with elsewhere (for example http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_nart.htm ). When claims about the 'curability' of homosexuality are raised in a debate about gay rights, to me the most disturbing aspect is the underlying assumption that it's a justification for denying civil rights to homosexuals. Left-handedness is 'curable', but long ago we realised that the success rate was extremely low and the cost to the individuals concerned was unacceptably high. Obesity is curable, but we don't award civil rights according to Body Mass Index.

Of itself, the homosexuality-is-curable argument is utterly disreputable, but it would be illuminating to hear from the people who use it why they single out homosexuals for the denial of civil rights, while ignoring a host of other 'curable' conditions.

Fractlle,

Obviously the act of marriage doesn't, doh. But stirring people up in order to achieve the physical impossible, or attempting to change the definition of marriafge is disturbing to many. These are the people I was refering ... those whose definition of marriage includes the possibility of procreation.

And you haven't yet withdrawn your obviously incorrect claim people are trying to prevent Homosexuals living in peace.

Keith

Every time someone beats up another for being gay homosexuals are prevented from living in peace.

Every time sometimes claims that allowing gays to marry is preventing them from living in peace.

Every time a homosexual has to hide their sexual orientation to gain employment or any other basic right that applies to all human beings irrespective of race, religion or gender, then they are being prevented from living in peace.

If married Christian couples are disturbed by the idea of gays marrying it is an anxiety of their own making.

What I choose do to in my own home has no bearing whatsoever on what you choose to do in yours.

I suggest you repeat to yourself:

Live and let live.

Sparkyq,
I don't have an obsession with incest, I've just been rather relentless in pointing out that there is no justifiable basis for differentiating between incest and homosexuality on a legal or ethical basis.

This has paid dividends as I've scored a few admissions along the way.

To quote CJMorgan: “of course it's an arbitrary line (between legalising homosexuality and legalising incest)".

To quote stormbay: "Ethically speaking there's nothing wrong with homosexual or incestuous mating".

I don't believe anybody can say that one is moral and the other is immoral.
Either they are both moral or they are both immoral or, alternatively, amoral.
If one is legal then the other should be legal.
They should both enjoy the same rights.

Borrowing from stormboy again: This would make homosexuals who deny incestuous rights "just biased, discriminatory and prejudiced".

Or courtesy Shadow Minister: They are just "religious fundementalists (sic) or bigots"

(This naturally assumes adult consensual incest, otherwise you would have to compare rape with rape.)

Those arguing for the inclusion of "procreation" in their definition of "marriage" need to consider the following examples where procreation is absolutely ruled out:

* What if the would-be bride is a post-menopausal woman? No procreation possible.
* What about other medical conditions? (Hysterectomy, Irradiation of the testes for cancer, missing/extra chromosomes, etc).
* Should churches annul marriages that cease to be fecund?
* What about a heterosexual couple who tell their RC priest of their chastity-in-marriage intent?
* What about a man who intends to marry someone who always thought they were female but was XY with complete androgen insensity syndrome and the resulting "supermodel" (tall, big-breasted, etc) body?

Personally I'm waiting for the first lesbian couple to announce a virgin birth.

woulfe,

Although you point out that marriage was not *officially defined* until 2004, you might agree that the male/female arrangement was the *working definition* to that point.

You bring up the idea of equal access. In fact, all *people* of age in our society have the legal *right* to enter the marriage contract. You, woulfe, are free to marry any single person of the opposite gender who will agree to the arrangement. In other words you are not denied the right to marry. You just don't like the definition of marriage. Therefore, this is not a discrimination or equal rights issue. It's simply a legislative issue about the definition of marriage. And there's really no confusion about the definition. It's been well understood for thousands of years. It's a religious practice that took on secular significance because of the legal rights and benefits that became associated with the union. This is why many argue that we should create civil unions to replicate the legal stuff and leave marriage to include its historical and religious context.

Roy.

"I don't know *why* the media is biased, but that doesn't change the fact that it *is*. There are many things in life one can observe without understanding the underlying explanation."

That's it, Roy? That's your argument? You believe the media is biased, can't explain why that would be, and when pressed for an explanation you simply categorise it with the great mysteries of life?

Now THERE's a challenge for the philosophers! What is the meaning of life, what constitutes dark matter, and why is the media biased in favour same-sex marriage? Big questions, all.

May I humbly suggest that there is no bias, but that Roy is a little paranoid about homosexuality and hence sees signs of pro-gay prejudice everywhere.

Fractlle,

Once again you are introducing red herrings in order to ... whatever ... your purpose isn't clear.

Everytime I hear someone wanting homosexuals to share marriage as the churches and I recognise it ... makes me laugh ... it is simply impossible for homosexuals to share such a marriage.

My and the churches definitions and assignations includes the possibility of procreation. How can that occur between two homosexuals.

Why don't you address this point? Too hard?

I don't care if homosexuals marry all I am concerned about is that my and the christian definition of marriage and it's widely accepted roles are given separate and equal recognition.

Balnes

So what? One of the mandatory conditions of the traditional Christian marriage is that it occur between a man and a woman. But while the definition might not include the possibility of procreation it is widely accepted by christians and the churches as one of the prime roles of a marriage. It isn't mandatory.

And Balnes, why are you not also waiting for two males to announce a virgin birth. Are you being a tad sexist?

It seems that homosexual people want equality based on their own self definitions.

They indulge in homosexual activity therefore their behaviour must be rational and logical in the same way as a heterosexual. Because they indulge in homosexual activity then there must be an immutable characteristic in their makeup which destines them to be homosexual in the same way that heterosexuals are programmed. There must therefore be a gene to scientifically prove that their sexual activity is as logical and reasonable as heterosexuals. Therefore they must be entitled to the same rights as heterosexuals since they can no more change their situation than can a person change their skin colour or gender.

Just because we behave in certain ways it does not automatically follow that those ways are reasonable and logical. To claim that behaviour is reasonable and logical and then to jump to assumptions beyond that without having the initial premise verified is poor logic to say the least. It would certainly be an irresponsible reason for changing the law.

People indulge in sexual activity for many different reasons and often those reasons are not logical or reasonable. Provided no one is hurt by that then it is just another case of irrational behaviour and the only one who loses out is the person behaving irrationally.

(cont.)

(cont.)

People are attracted to members of their own sex for all types of reasons but it does not automatically follow that sexual activity is logical and reasonable. It is normal and natural to love members of the same sex but it does not follow that sexual activity with them is logical and reasonable.

There are of course times when it is logical and reasonable to have sex with someone but you can never prove that to others unless it can be seen by them. The only situation that can be verifiable is when two heterosexual people decide to have sex in order to create a new life and nine months later the logic of their actions can be seen.

Homosexual people will never be able to prove that any of their sexual activity is reasonable or logical and this is just something they have to live with. It does not mean it is not – it just means it cannot be proven. They should be at peace with that and not demand rights that they cannot prove they deserve. To continue to do so would indeed be illogical.

Well, yes, it's true that everyone is equally entitled to marry someone of the opposite sex, just as in jurisdictions where miscegenation was banned, everyone was equally entitled to marry someone of the same race. I'll leave this one to the late Mildred Loving, who with her husband Richard instigated the end of anti-miscegenation laws in the US: http://www.positiveliberty.com/2007/06/mildred-lovings-statement.html

I'm tempted to ask for more detail about what "reasonable and logical" sexual behaviour might entail, but on second thoughts ...

Maybe someone could just point me to where it states that "reasonable and logical" sexual behaviour is a pre-requisite for marriage.

Woulfe,
Reasonably and logically argued!

"Just because we behave in certain ways it does not automatically follow that those ways are reasonable and logical. To claim that behaviour is reasonable and logical and then to jump to assumptions beyond that without having the initial premise verified is poor logic to say the least."

Yes! Thank you for your good sense, phanto!. That is a perfect argument against religion. That's what you meant, I assume?

Keith

First you call my examples of bigotry toward homosexuals as "red herrings", last time I checked this was a thread concerning equal human rights for gays/lesbians.

And then you come out with this little treat:

"My and the churches definitions and assignations includes the possibility of procreation. How can that occur between two homosexuals."

You and your churches definition of marriage is only applicable to you and your church. You do not hold sway over the rest of the universe.

Question, what do you do about those disobedient heterosexuals in your church who marry and do not procreate, either because they are unable or they simply don't want children?

We live in 2009 yet we have learnt nothing that went before,when a person that was recogonised as not a part of the majority, they where rejected and hounded.

Can any of those today who deny the rights, to people who are not a part of the majority, please explain in a secular sense why?

Love comes in many forms, though I feel those who deny the recognition of love, appear to be missing love in their lives.

Woulfe said - I'm tempted to ask for more detail about what "reasonable and logical" sexual behaviour might entail, but on second thoughts ...

You must be feeling uncomfortable if you have to resort to sarcasm.

No one ever said that "reasonable and logical" sexual behaviour is a pre-requisite for marriage but it is a pre-requisite for equality. You say that homosexuals are entitled to marriage based on equality with heterosexuals. We need more than just an opinion that they are equal – we need some proof. Proof is important in making decisions to change laws.

What exactly do we mean by equality in this case? Let’s say both groups are equal in every respect except for the availability of proof that their behaviour is sometimes logical and reasonable. Homosexuals fall short by just that much so they are not equal. You may not think logic and reason in human behaviour is important but it underpins all our laws and important decisions. If certain behaviour and the presumptions based on it cannot be proven to be logical and reasonable then it is quite possible that it is unreasonable and maybe quite neurotic. This can be presumed a possibility in all cases of homosexual behaviour and in many cases of heterosexual behaviour. The only case where it can be proved logical at all is when two people set out to procreate.

The whole question of whether governments should have any say in defining relationships such as marriage is another issue. For better or worse the situation is as it is. If you want legislators to include homosexuals in marriage rights, as they stand, on the basis of equality then you need to prove equality in the only area where is seems to fall short and it is a very important area.

It is not self-evident that homosexuality is equally rational with heterosexuality. If it is not then the suspicion remains that it is irrational and perhaps neurotic and governments should not pander to the claims of groups who are even possibly irrational.

Fractlle

There you go again.

This discussion isn't about equal rights it's about defining marriage so as to include homosexuals.

I don't want my definition of marriage to hold sway over the rest of the population.
I've never ever maintained that position. I think you should withdraw that exaggerated allegation or ... show proof.

I just want the rest of the population to treat my definition with equal status as a definition that includes homosexual behaviour. I don't want such a homosexual marriage definition to hold sway over all the universe and especially over those who want their definition or assignations to include a possibility of procreation. ie I don't want to see people who include procreation to be discriminated against.

Quite simple and exactly as the homosexual lobby want for themselves.

Are you deliberately misreading what I've written?

Fascinating to see entrenched homophobia in action.

phanto: << You must be feeling uncomfortable if you have to resort to sarcasm. >>

Exasperated, more likely.

keith: << I don't want my definition of marriage to hold sway over the rest of the population. >>

Bulldust. You want to exclude homosexuals from legal marriage. Isn't that "holding sway" over those homosexuals in the "rest of the population" who want to legally marry?

<< Are you deliberately misreading what I've written? >>

Disingenuous and obtuse. Closet homophobic to boot. Not worth arguing with.

Ciao.

Those who have read the article we're discussing know that this discussion most definitely is about equality. The article begins with the Labor Party's claim that it has

"…always stood for equality. Throughout our party’s history successive
Labor governments have sought to achieve this by helping people
overcome disadvantages based on social class, gender, sexuality,
disability, religion, cultural background and racial prejudice. We have
always pursued the fair go, tolerance and respect. We oppose all
attempts to divide Australians by pandering to prejudice."

The article goes on to show that (a) anything less than same-sex marriage is not equality, and (b) one after another, western democracies are moving towards complete equality for same-sex couples.

Those who have read the article also know that this discussion most certainly is not about behaviour. Equality doesn't come with a behaviour manual, sexual or otherwise, and there is no basis for denying human rights to individuals on the basis of perfectly legal and acceptable actions.

Sexual behaviour is irrelevant in this discussion. Would anyone who wants to talk about sex please take it somewhere else.

Solution:
Homosexuals can get "married" but it should have its own special name.
Maybe gayrriage or queerriage or homarriage?
Any other reasonable suggestions?
Problem solved.

KMB,
An imaginative solution!

Woulfe

Of course the issue is about equality. Love for one another is one of our most powerful and wonderful emotions.

KMB

Why don't you suggest that gays & lesbians wear a big yellow mark on their clothes?

Fractelle,
How about lavender?

It is not about equality unless homosexuality is equal to heterosexuality and that has not been proven.

Of course it is about sexual behaviour because that is what distinguishes the two groups.

I wonder would it be ok under any SSM legislation for two mates who were not homosexuals to be married so they could have access to all the things that being legally married seems to provide. If you excluded them would not that be discrimination on the basis of sexuality? The problem then is that there would be no way of distinguishing between which couples were homosexual and which were not and I suspect homosexual people would not like that since this campaign is more about recognition and ‘legitimising’ their sexual behaviour than it is about rights.

Say goodnight, Gracie.

How do we measure sexuality equality, phanto? Is there a peer-reviewed, standardised international sexual orientation quality assessment tool? Or are we using the Things That Phanto Has Trouble Understanding And Is Made Uncomfortable By For Reasons He Can't Quite Explain scale?

As I have already tried to explain you can measure it by its logic and reasonableness. Is heterosexuality logical and reasonable? Can you say that it makes sense? For instance if you want to create a new life is it logical and reasonable for a man and a woman to have sex for that purpose? You can say yes because you see that the heterosexual behaviour and hence heterosexuality brings about the desired result. It can be proven to be logical and reasonable because we can see the results with our own eyes.

Where is the proof that homosexual behaviour is logical and reasonable? What can we see with our senses that tell us that homosexual behaviour and hence homosexuality is more than just a neurotic aberration? What proof is there that any act of homosexual behaviour is logical and reasonable? It is not enough just to accept the opinions of homosexual people or any of their supporters. They could be quite wrong.

That is the difference which makes them unequal. One has proof and the other does not. Logic and reason should underpin everything we do. If we can prove that our sexual behaviour is logical then our sexuality is logical. If homosexual people cannot prove that then they are unequal in terms of sexuality to that extent and it is a large extent.

What strange cognitive processes homophobes apparently have. For examples of logic and reason being absent, one only has to read the scrambled efforts of keith, KMB or phanto as they try to justify discrimination against homosexual couples.

Woufe is quite correct - goodnight, Gracie. The show's over, no more entertainment here. I hope I'm around to watch the homophobes rant and squirm when gay marriage is inevitably legalised.

CJ

I'm sure you will live to see marriage as a choice for all people, not just those who happened to be born heterosexual.

au revoir

Homosexual relationships will never be the equal of heterosexual relationships because they are not inherently procreative and never will be.
If SS"M" is ever codified into law it will merely be another transgression against natural law.
Law is not an arbiter of what is right and wrong.
History is replete with bad laws.
You can change man-made law but you can't change natural law.
Suffer the children.

Jeez CJ

I wondered how long it would take for the oponents of my proposal to sink to the level of hetrophobic abuse. Didn't take long at all did it?

I'll let you win the abuse 'stakes' and I'll settle for your latent acknowledgement your arguments are complete rubbish.

Woulfe

You don't mind us talking about procreation ... do you?

Fractelle

Oh you just don't get it do you?

Why not good night Gavie? Are you blokes latently sexist ... as well?

The American Psychological Association has reversed it's position on the existence of a "gay gene":

"no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors"
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=97940

I did wonder a while back, as to the depths this thread would finally sink to, and it didn't disappoint.

It is all too easy for normal folk to imagine that an automatic, visceral rejection of homosexuality has disappeared from our society. Since the stigma no longer exists, it should follow that the gut-level hatred goes too.

So it is useful to be reminded that there are still people out there - apparently literate, possibly even intelligent people - who still carry a deep-seated fear of homosexuals, and react accordingly.

This puzzled me for a minute.

>>The American Psychological Association has reversed it's position on the existence of a "gay gene"<<

From the little I know of genetics, any "homosexual gene" would un-breed itself out of existence, pretty quickly, by definition. So it had never occurred to me that anyone would have postulated its existence for a minute.

Still, it's important to note that with genes out of the way, the fear brigade now 'knows for a fact' that homosexuality is simply a lifestyle choice. Incorrigible.

It is also useful to keep track of the sources these folk use for their material. Thanks KMB. That one's an absolute cracker. Not an ounce of humanity to be found in the mudslide of its prejudices.

I particularly loved its self-promotion:

"an independent news company dedicated to uncompromising journalism, seeking truth and justice and revitalizing the role of the free press as a guardian of liberty."

Ranks up there with Fox News, which is now fair, balanced *and* accurate!

http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/05/06/fox-adds-accurate-to-fair-balanced-slogan/

So, thanks to keith, KMB, phanto. Most educational.

The postscript to this must go to phanto.

>>I wonder would it be ok under any SSM legislation for two mates who were not homosexuals to be married so they could have access to all the things that being legally married seems to provide<<

That would be life imitating art, phanto.

http://popwatch.ew.com/popwatch/2008/12/boston-legal--1.html

Pericles,
Are you saying that WND inaccurately quoted the American Psychological Association?
If not, then what is the relevance of what you're saying?
Are you saying that the APA got it wrong?
If so, where is your proof?
Stormbay has earlier claimed on this thread that "we are psychologically born with our sexual preferences".
The APA quote refutes that there is any factual basis for making this claim.
I'd previously quoted Peter Tatchell to refute the gay gene theory.
http://www.petertatchell.net/gay%20gene/gene%20genie.htm
Does he pass your test?

False dichotomy.

There's more to biology and development than genes and 'choice'.

Thalidomide babies aren't born with "the Thalidomide gene", they are developmentally changed by 'environmental' influences (in this case a drug). There are many environmental factors that can influence development within the womb and after. And yet you cannot say that such affected children are a 'lifestyle choice'.
Brain development is especially sensitive to particular developmental influences as it changes synaptic connections so much over time and is influenced so much by biochemistry.

Weirdly enough though, every male contains enough genetic information to make a female. It's an uncommon but not exceedingly rare occurrence to see developmentally ambiguous genitalia on children at birth- it's not genetic, it's developmental. And they're born with it.

Bugsy,

False analogy.

You appear to have missed my previous post:

"no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors"
...American Psychological Association

Unlike the victims of Thalidome, however, homosexuals can be cured:

"While many mental health care providers and professional associations have expressed considerable skepticism that sexual orientation could be changed with psychotherapy and also assumed that therapeutic attempts at reorientation would produce harm, recent empirical evidence demonstrates that homosexual orientation can indeed be therapeutically changed in motivated clients, and that reorientation therapies do not produce emotional harm when attempted"

Maxmen, JS & Ward, NG 2009, Essential Psychopathology and Its Treatment, WW Norton & Company, New York, p. 488.

KMB: << homosexuals can be cured >>

So homosexuality's a disease? Says it all really.

How interesting to observe full-blown homophobia so honestly expressed.

"Particular factor" is a point you seemed to have missed. There could be many factors involved. Were they also talking about non-genetic factors in that context? And they are not analogies, they are examples of developmental changes one natural (ambiguous genitalia) and one where the cause is known and indisputable (Thalidomide- as an example of external or environmental non-genetic factor). Brain sexualisation is quite possibly developmentally regulated (as opposed to genetically regulated). However, it is true that we don't know nearly enough about the brain yet but it cannot be ruled out.

As for "cures" for homosexuality, that's disputable. Particular behaviours can be avoided by "therapeutic techniques" or even training. Even rats can be trained. But does that actually change the underlying inclinations? The Catholic Church would probably say yes, a molested choirboy or pregnant widow may not. There is a great deal of societal pressure to be "normal", and in that context you will also notice the phrase "motivated individual".

The only problem with using the word 'cure' is that you tacitly seem to be saying that it's some sort of disease, or abnormality, which also implies that the cause is somewhat out of the control of the individuals in question. That doesn't seem consistent to me with what you appear to be thinking is merely a 'lifestyle choice'

It’s great that you’re engaging this issue, CJ and Bugsy, but what we’re seeing is just repetition of straw issues that have been dealt with in this discussion already. If I too may repeat myself:

“On sites like narth.com and "Americans for Truth about
Homosexuality" http://snipurl.com/gw7v3 there is no
shortage of people claiming that (a) homosexuality is a
pathology that (b) can be 'cured.' This claim has been dealt
with elsewhere (for example
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_nart.htm ). When
claims about the 'curability' of homosexuality are raised in
a debate about gay rights, to me the most disturbing aspect
is the underlying assumption that it's a justification for
denying civil rights to homosexuals. Left-handedness is
'curable', but long ago we realised that the success rate was
extremely low and the cost to the individuals concerned
was unacceptably high. Obesity is curable, but we don't
award civil rights according to Body Mass Index.

Of itself, the homosexuality-is-curable argument is utterly
disreputable, but it would be illuminating to hear from the
people who use it why they single out homosexuals for the
denial of civil rights, while ignoring a host of other 'curable'
conditions. “
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8779#140156

They never did explain why 'curable' homosexuals deserve fewer rights, while 'curable' left-handers get the same rights as everyone else.

Because there are no reputable arguments against equal civil rights for same-sex-attracted people, those who nonetheless would deny us equality can only dump straw issues into the discussion, using lies and base prejudice as “evidence.” The steady, inexorable spread of same-sex marriage through one jurisdiction after another shows that ultimately the homophobes will not prevail. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage#Current_status

To all those who have been supportive through this discussion, heartfelt thanks. For those driven by “an automatic, visceral rejection of homosexuality,” I hope that the inevitable coming of equality for same-sex-attracted people brings you the realisation that embracing diversity of all kinds (not just homosexuals) will greatly enrich your lives.

<”Are you saying that the APA got it wrong?
If so, where is your proof?
Stormbay has earlier claimed on this thread that "we are psychologically born with our sexual preferences".
The APA quote refutes that there is any factual basis for making this claim.
I'd previously quoted Peter Tatchell to refute the gay gene theory.”>

The APA don't have it wrong, there is no gene associated with homosexuality and they don't refute my claim at all. It's your lack of knowledge, understanding and desire to manipulate things to suit your fantasies. Read this article published by the APA, it will lead you to other relevant articles which don't support you at all.

http://www.psychologymatters.org/hooker.html

You clearly have no idea of the difference between genetics and Psychological attributes, which have little to do with your genetic inheritance. We don't know how we arrive at our psychological makeup, outlook and preferences, nor how we choose which sexual orientation we undertake for our lives. There is some evidence showing we are borne with hetro/homo/bi, psychological makeups of varying degrees, some have even more variations. Something which I would agree with. If we understood those things, we still may not be able to change them. Why would we want to, if they are no more harmful than another sexual orientation, which respects others right to be, without harassment.

I do belief this thread is about homosexual marriage, not genetics, an attack, or accusations on those who are different psychologically. One of the main reasons homosexuals have a problem with their sexualities, always revolves around the ideology they were brought up in, that's the only real conflict and it's just as illusionary as the ideology.

Stop wriggling, KMB, it's not a good look.

>>Pericles, Are you saying that WND inaccurately quoted the American Psychological Association? If not, then what is the relevance of what you're saying? Are you saying that the APA got it wrong? If so, where is your proof?<<

For a start - as I said - I cannot believe for a moment that anyone, even a body as august and respected as the American Psychological Association, could have been stupid enough to suggest that full-blown, unequivocal homosexuality is transmitted genetically, hence my surprise that someone suggested that they had changed their mind.

Incidentally, it is not up to me to prove or disprove. I am making an observation and stating an opinion.

Peter Tatchell is of course making his own observations (also without "proof", you will notice) from the position of having been gay as long as he can remember. But his view is that

"Sexual orientation appears to become fixed in the first few years of life. For most of us it is very difficult, if not impossible, to subsequently change our sexual orientation."

I'm not quite sure whether this supports your position or undermines it - can you help me out perhaps?

In fact, quite apart from the obvious - that you are afraid of homosexuals, that they might somehow pose a threat to you, and need therefore to be "cured" - what is your position? Because, leaving your own fears aside, there really is no reason not to accept homosexuals as fully functioning members of society, is there?

Or if there are such reasons, could you please state them clearly, without trying to hide behind your layman's interpretation of journals that are clearly beyond your comprehension.

The assertion by KMB that homosexuality can be cured is total rubbish.

That there are a handful of documented cases where individuals have learnt to curb their acting on their sexual preferences, (generally where the huge conflict between the prejudices inherent in their religion and their nature caused huge distress), but very few cases where their sexual preferences have actually changed

Pericles,

<<I cannot believe…that…the American Psychological Association, could have been stupid enough to suggest that…homosexuality is transmitted genetically>>
Here’s the APA being stupid:
"There is considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person's sexuality."
http://www.narth.com/docs/deemphasizes.html
APA has now backed down from this position.
<<there really is no reason not to accept homosexuals as fully functioning members of society>>
Is not the procreative function an important one in any society?
If so, then by definition homosexual behaviour excludes one from being fully functioning.

Woulfe,

<<embracing diversity of all kinds (not just homosexuals) will greatly enrich your lives>>
Embracing diversity of ALL kinds (including incestuous relationships? Or do you exclude them and on what basis?) will greatly enrich your lives.
“of course it's an arbitrary line (between legalising homosexuality and legalising incest)"…CJMorgan
"Ethically speaking there's nothing wrong with homosexual or incestuous mating"…stormbay

Shadow Minister
<< The assertion by KMB that homosexuality can be cured is total rubbish>>
“empirical evidence demonstrates that homosexual orientation can indeed be therapeutically changed in motivated clients” Maxmen, JS & Ward, NG.
Hmmm, whom should one give more credence?

- Life expectancy for gay and bisexual men is 20 years less than the average Canadian man;
- GLBs commit suicide at rates ranging from twice to almost 14 times the general population (2-14xGP);
- GLBs have smoking rates ranging from 1.3-3xGP;
- GLBs become alcoholics at a rate 1.4-7xGP;
- GLBs use illicit drugs at a rate from 1.6-19xGP;
-GLBs experience depression at rates ranging from 1.8-3xGP;
- Homosexual men comprise 76% of AIDS cases and 45% of all new HIV infections;
- GLBs are at higher risk of lung and liver cancer;
- Homosexual and bisexual men suffer higher rate of anal cancer than heterosexual men 90xGP;
- Lesbians report a higher rate of breast cancer;
- GLBs experience verbal and physical abuse at a greater rate than most Canadians.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/may/09051403.html

Hmmm, I’d be looking for a cure if these pathologies were statistically linked to my behaviour….

http://ww2.cdph.ca.gov/programs/aids/Documents/HIVAIDSMergedMar09.pdf

and the beat goes on….

http://www.mass.gov/Eeohhs2/docs/dph/health_equity/sexual_orientation_disparities_report.pdf

So, which is it? A pathology or a choice?

You seem to be burning the candle at both ends here.

Thanks Bugsy,
I'd almost forgotten.
The Freudian slip in your previous post where you mentioned molested choirboys suggests a topic worthy of examination: the link between homosexuality and paedophilia, or man-boy love as proponents prefer to call it.
However such a rich topic deserves its own thread, don't you think?

Actually, I would have thought the more likely link would have been between paedophilia and Catholicism, or maybe just the tendency towards the priesthood?

So, what's is it, pathology or choice?
That was a poor attempt to change the subject.

Spooky!
Looks like we've gone subterranean.
Last Word.

I have no doubt that through dogged persistence you will outlast everyone else in this discussion. However the last word on this issue will be played out elsewhere, and it's not going your way.

If I were a believer, I'd be praying for you. Since I'm not, I wish you the peace and self-acceptance needed to embrace the rich human diversity around you.

Love is a much more sustaining emotion than hate.

Jim

Woulfe,
What's H8 got to do with it?
Or are you referring to the kind of H8 that homosexuals show to those who stand in the way of their agenda:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fIMtEePJKRo&feature=PlayList&p=8DF2232593A7B1DA&index=19&playnext=2&playnext_from=PL

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PrRxFoBSPng&feature=PlayList&p=8DF2232593A7B1DA&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=20

http://americansfortruth.com/news/prop-8-related-crimes.html

No answers yet again, I can't say I'm surprised.

What sort of juvenile is so desperate to have the last word that they actually type out "Last Word"?

Juvenile eh Bugsy?
Another Freudian slip?

KMB you are really stooping to lowest of low. Grow up!

Sparkyq,
Are you the same Sparkyq that accused me of having "an obscession (sic) with incest"?
That was stooping pretty low.
I'm catching the sniff of hypocrisy, Sparkyq.

Back under your bridge, big guy.

KMB,

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=homosexuality-cure-masters-johnson

I would rather believe the medical profession and the AMA. Most claims of "conversion" would appear to be bogus and not repeatable.

If you look hard enough you will always find a book or "expert" that can support your argument. The credibility of Maxmen, JS & Ward, NG is tenuous at best.

PS. The majority of HIV cases in the world are heterosexual.

Shadow Minister,
So all those ex-gays must be part of some right-wing conspiracy theory I guess.
<<The majority of HIV cases in the world are heterosexual.>>
This may be technically true but this is largely due to the fact that less than 2% of the population is homosexual.
Furthermore, you cannot compare the African experience to the Western experience because HIV is a behaviourally related problem.
The fact is that in Western societies (eg California), Men who have Sex with Men (MSM) represent 76% of all male cases of HIV and MSM who also inject drugs represent another 8%.
Not bad for 2% of the population.
Must be part of that right-wing conspiracy again.
USFDA data has HIV amongst MSM as sixty times the general population.
Your Post Script, therefore, is disingenuous and misleading.
Homosexual behaviour is responsible for the vast majority of HIV and AIDS cases in the Western world.