"Parliamentarians should have a conscience vote on gay marriage"

No, let's put it to a referendum.

Convince the government to put it up and let the people have a conscience vote.

After all, the parliamentarians are merely reflecting their constituencies views aren't they.

So if you are having trouble getting it up there, then simply go to the people, it should be easy surely since you're poll of 1052 people gave you the result which you believe is reflective of Australian opinion.

Why do lobby groups go so hard at politicians on things like this?

They are damned if they do and damned if they don't. It's their career after all, the way they pay their mortgage and even if privately they agree with you, publicly it would be political suicide in Australia. Why, because the poll was crafted to get this response.

"A number of countries allow same-sex couples to marry. These include Argentina, Canada, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, South Africa and Spain, as well as parts of the United States and Mexico.

Do you agree or disagree that same-sex couples in Australia should be able to marry?"

It's clever framing of the question - I wonder what the responses would have been like if you had not framed it in that manner and just asked the question?

Why do you think it was necessary to have the little pre-amble to give the pollee the message that to disagree would be unusual, or negative? No one wants to be negative when being asked by a stranger, that's why polls always come back favorable with this sort of construct.

You commissioned a poll, to essentially get the result you got, and wonder why there are people who doubt it? Don't be so tricky, people don't like to be conned like this.

Get someone independent to do a poll, with no "push" and see how you go.

I can't see a government ever going against the essentially conservative wishes of the Australian public.

> > No, let's put it to a referendum.

This suggestion comes up quite regularly in relation to equality for same-sex couples. On the face of it, a referendum sounds like a good idea ... get some direct democracy going, let the people decide, that would be fair, right?

Wrong.

It’s very easy for people who already have equal rights to argue that someone else’s equality should be put to a referendum, but that’s not how it works. Equality belongs to human beings because they are human, not because the majority says they can have it. Pause a while over the first article of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

“All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and
rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience
and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.”
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

We’re born with equal rights. Heterosexual couples didn’t have to beg their fellow citizens for equality, so I’ll need some convincing that I should.

Here’s a delightfully whimsical Irish take on the same notion:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ULdaSrYGLQ

The case for the right of lesbian and gay people to be able to marry if they wish is, above all else, one of acquiring equality of human rights. It is not marrying a same-sex partner that is important, as not all lesbian and gay people would marry given the right to do so. The same is true for heterosexuals. It is the right to choose to marry someone who is loved and for that choice to be recognised as a legal and equal partnership by society that is significant.

Even though recent polls show majority support for lesbian and gay marriage this should not be the only arbiter, which brings such an arrangement into law. Politicians have a bigger job than just following the wishes of a majority. They are duty bound to make laws for the country, which are compassionate, fair and take into account all the facts. If long-standing traditional prejudice is usurped by greater understanding then it can no longer be used as fact.

Informed people without a particular axe to grind recognise that homosexuality is not a chosen state. It is innate in character the same as is heterosexuality. The ability to marry demonstrates that as a society we have matured beyond old preconceptions formulated in times of ignorance. Human sexuality is a wide spectrum and lesbian and gay people are a part of it, no less than any other.

There is a new web site just up and running, The Potential Wedding Album, which puts a human face on this topic. It contains photos and stories of couples and messages of support from those who recognise the injustice. http://www.thepotentialweddingalbum.org/

Take a look. It could change the way you think.

David

What if the parliament are a lot of homophobics?
Will that usher in the day of liberation? Like hell.
socratease

"It’s very easy for people who already have equal rights to argue that someone else’s equality should be put to a referendum, but that’s not how it works"

Yes it is .. or there would be gay marriage now

I love being told to go look at a UN site, the organization which has what, half it's member's leaders are despots and tyrants?

Who is on the Human Rights committee right now? Have a look, see how many of them support gay marriage in their own countries.

Australia is not subject to UN charters, agreements or such unless we feel like it.

It's optional, not binding.

Mind you if the UN wants to pass a resolution to agree to war in Iraq or Afghanistan, suddenly people don't want to quote UN resolutions, do they?

I'm of the school of thought that we should not sign up to any UN instrument at all without a referendum.

It's a bloody cheek the way various lobby and self interest groups sneak around lobbying to sign this or that, then waving it in our faces saying, "but Australia has signed up to x or y"

Throw them all out and put them to a democratic vote.

Sounds like you're not overly happy with that process, and want a different process.

What's up .. wasn't the "poll" good enough to convince you to go to the people? Surely it would be a lay down mezzaire?

"We’re born with equal rights", in your dreams .. have a look around the world, it's a nice ideal but not reality.

It will happen eventually, but don't do it in such a way that makes it look like you are being tricky and deceitful, it will only delay the process. Don't quote UN regs, we all know they are meaningless.

Woulfe, I would agree on the right in principle;

But to make it actually happen, it's either the public (who stand a good chance of being mostly liberal towards Gay Marriage and see no problem with it) in a referendum;

Or- you have a handful of politicians- who are likely going to pander to extreme fringe-dwelling minorities to ensure their swinging vote;

Make your choice.

@ Amicus

Firstly, The government wont support a referendum because they are worried that the opinion polls which suggest that the majority support gay marriage are actually correct. Secondly; because the government does not support gay marriage, they then don't want it to become an issue.

Also right-wing people don't seem to be wanting a referendum either because they know that the majority support gay marriage and they don't want to see the majority siding with "the gays".

And there is also the issue of the majority voting on rights for the minority.

I can't help but wonder if some of the people who are calling for a referendum are only doing so as a delaying tactic.

There's no need for a referendum on same-sex marriage. We don't have referendums on abortion, voluntary euthanasia, education policies or the budget - we elect a government to make laws and they should get on with it. Referendums are for changes to the constitution and none is needed to effect marriage equality. Same-sex marriage would make a lot of people happy (see www.thepotentialweddingalbum.org - lots of photos and stories of people who just want equality) and have no real impact on us straight people who can choose to either get married or not, as we like. Australia should be leading by example in treating its citizens equally, not arguing about it.

Men and women have been marrying and producing children for thousands of years in virtually all the cultures that are either here or gone.
Suddenly, along come homosexual activists like Rodney Croome to tell anybody who thinks the status quo is normal that they are “crazy”.
How inclusive to call all those who disagree with you fundamentalists.
Guess who’s really the wacky zealot Rodney?
Also, isn’t it queer that Rodney uses suspect polling wherein 62% of the population purportedly support SSM as a stick to argue for a conscience vote for politicians yet he makes no mention of a people’s referendum?
Surely the measure would cruise it in on the bare back of those numbers?
Or aren’t you confident of the validity of the polling either Rodney?
Wait a minute.
Would the pollsters who claim 62% support for SSM be the same crowd who gave us the lie that homosexuals are 10% of the population whereas even homosexual websites are now admitting that they form a mere 1%?
http://www.gcn.ie/feature.aspx?articleid=2939&sectionid=14
But who remembers the lie once it’s served its purpose and we’ve moved on, hey Rodney?
30 out of 30 US states which had citizen initiated referenda on SSM voted to keep marriage between a man and a woman.
Shock horror!
“Crazy” fundamentalists!
Imagine the bigotry in their hate-filled minds!
But wait.
Maybe that’s why Rodney’s not real keen on a referendum but would would rather use the back passage approach, as has been so effective in those states in the USA where they now have SSM.
Judicial and legislative activism is much more effective isn’t it Rodney?
Sorry to disappoint you Rodney but legalising SSM won’t make it normal or natural.

Proxy - yes, men and women have been marrying and producing children for thousands of years. No-one is objecting to that and no-one is suggesting that most men and women would not continue to do so if same-sex marriage was legalised. All that would happen if marriage equality occurs is that those who happen to have a different sexual orientation will also be considered equal under the law. (And if you think sexual orientation is somehow chosen then I wonder exactly when you considered your options and chose to be straight (wild guess that's how you identify) and what would it take for you to choose to be gay?).

Society's understanding of marriage has changed over time. At one time inter-faith and inter-racial marriage was considered taboo and people probably objected to social progress along the lines of your (non) argument. Now those types of marriages are not an issue and if same-sex marriage is legalised it will also become a non-issue (albeit, perhaps you won't change your mind).

Btw I'm straight, but I support all Australians' right to equality.

HerbieTheBeagle, sure, in fact, we shouldn't have wasted our time on a referendum on Indigenous Land rights either, as this clearly does not affect the rest of us; and we (are forced to) elect people to make our decisions for us, why should we demand more rights simply because we currently don't actually have them now?

Jason, I agree.
"Also right-wing people don't seem to be wanting a referendum either because they know that the majority support gay marriage and they don't want to see the majority siding with "the gays"."
Of course, they would not admit it because they know their entire stance is of their own bigotry alone.

King Hazza I think you're missing my point. I completely support demanding equality for same-sex oriented people, I'm just saying there shouldn't need to be a referendum to achieve it - the government should just legislate and get it done.

And what makes you think the government are going to do that though?
That is the point in question. When you elect someone to "represent" us, there is no practical reason they are going to respect their constituents beliefs and aren't just going to turn around and simply govern by their own personal views instead.
Except of course, to pander to a swinging fringe, or another political party to get preferences- which of course requires conforming to the party line (Which representatives from safe seats are willing to do to ensure party principles triumph).

Politicians are at perfect liberty to govern how THEY want and not how WE want, if they so choose.

Parliamentarians do somewhat let their personal connections to idealist ambitions get in the way of pure business decisions rather than corporate separation.

Life is not about how much is in the bank but rather happiness, in achieving happiness is doing what’s right for balance of harmony.

To achieve long term harmony we need to listen to all and resolve, rather than nitpick or provoke through personal choice but a broader sense.

There are problems worldwide, there are resolutions and answers to all problems achieved through working together rather than against.

The Australian public have already spoken not by sensor companies but by forums and voice that ‘this is not a big deal so what if people same gendered what you couple up let them’.

People sometimes find what they are looking for on the same side of the tracks rather than the opposite such as soul mates, it’s not in stone that true love is an opposite attraction, but more something that comes when you least expect.

On the subject of gendered mates its nature’s way of people finding happiness, something that not only happens with humans but also within the animal kingdom where even sometime different species find perfect happiness together

<<its nature’s way of people finding happiness, something that not only happens with humans but also within the animal kingdom where even sometime different species find perfect happiness together>>

Proving that homosexuality is normal and natural, homosexual biologists have discovered the happiness imperative!
The biological imperative is heteronormative because it implies that the sexual drive is somehow linked to reproduction.
That's "crazy" fundamentalist thinking!
No, nature's happiness imperative is what really drives both humans and animals to have sexual relations with their own gender so that they can "find perfect happiness together".
Hmmm,
I wonder where AIDs, MRSA, Gay Bowel Syndrome, anal cancer and all those hepatitis' fit in with nature's happiness plan for homosexuals?

It really does my heart good to realise that we have so few real problems in our world today, that we can waste so much time on such rubbish.

Dear Woulfe,
You said "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood".
Could you please tell me who gave us those rights and conscience and why we do not live by them and then we may be able to find the answer to the problem. 2 wrongs never make a right so we have a duty to get it right for future generations.

Well there you go again Rodney....

Your spurious arguments at the 'GAY MARRIAGE' ABC program at Hawthorn, are still no less spurious now.

When Bill Muhlenberg demonstrated the fallacious nature of your position, you chose to simply

Deny
Dig in
Distract

you suggesting that we are in no danger whatsoever of 'other polyamourous' groups using the same reasoning as your gay lobby to justify their own deviate behavior would have been shot down by my question which just missed out on getting asked (due them shutting down question time), but it was this:

"Don't you find that Keysar Trad's demand for a public debate on Polygamy is evidence that your position is incorrect"?

Which of course....it is.

You maintained that "Australia is traditionally a one man one woman society so gay marriage would be one man one man" but in the light of actual facts...that is ludicrous and absurd!

http://www.theage.com.au/national/melbourne-sheik-backs-calls-to-legalise-polygamy-20080625-2wv9.html

woulfe
Your position is understandable. What right do others have to decide what should be a natural human right for people to marry the person they love. However, I tend to agree with King Hazza that it probably won't come about any other way unless there is a public referendum (shame that it is). Politicians are too driven by the short electoral cycle and human rights play a poor second.

It might not be the optimum way to achieve equality but maybe it will be the only way unless the politicians change and start to show some gumption on this issue.

Al
Polygamy is quite a different thing. While one could argue that humans should have the right to form whatever arrangements they like in regard to their personal lives, the fact is polygamy (unlike gay marriage) involves more than two people and let's be honest it won't be women taking on more than one husband but men amassing wives.

It is odd in that article people are more concerned about single mothers having sex outside marriage than arranging sham marriages just so there can be sex.

It is certainly beyond me how anyone can view http://www.thepotentialweddingalbum.org/ and bring forward semantic polemic about anything except the human rights aspect.

Beyond me is an exaggeration. We all know, or should know, the power of cultural indoctrination. There is no mystery in that. It has always held back societies from necessary progressive advances in the equality stakes.

The good thing is that bigotry eventually falls by the wayside.

David

Dear Pelly

love the way you discuss :)

You said:

"let's be honest it won't be women taking on more than one husband but men amassing wives." Smack on there dear...though I did hear a woman 'caller' from my area a year or 3 back who bragged about going from one toy boy to another.. hmmmm

The context for my post was Rodney Croomes claim that 'no one' would start agitating for 'alternative' patterns of marriage etc... I pointed out that it has already happened....

He was either speaking in ignorance of telling a bare faced lie.
If he is ignorant...then hopefully he read my post :) I was next in line to ask questions at that night in Hawthorn but they shut down the questions b4 I had a chance. (program time limit)

Cheers

"Sorry to disappoint you Rodney but legalising SSM won’t make it normal or natural."
-Proxy

Sorry to dissapoint you Proxy, but invoking the naturalistic fallacy won't make homosexuality wrong.

"The biological imperative is heteronormative because it implies that the sexual drive is somehow linked to reproduction.
That's "crazy" fundamentalist thinking!
No, nature's happiness imperative is what really drives both humans and animals to have sexual relations with their own gender so that they can "find perfect happiness together"."
-Proxy

No, Proxy, "crazy" fundamentalist thinking is believing that people have sex for the sole purpose of reproduction. I can assure you this is not the case, as can all the folk who manufacture contraceptives. Mostly, people dance the horizontal rumba 'coz it's fun. And some people find it more fun to shag someone of the same sex. Exactly what is so threatening about that notion?

"I wonder where AIDs, MRSA, Gay Bowel Syndrome, anal cancer and all those hepatitis' fit in with nature's happiness plan for homosexuals?"
-Proxy

In exactly the same place they fit in with 'nature's happiness plan' for heterosexuals. Sadly, being heterosexual does not offer me or any other heterosexual immunity to the afflictions listed (no, not even Gay Bowel Syndrome – google it). And I'm pretty sure that if I contracted any of them, I'd be rather unhappy. Now, how is my case any different from that of a homosexual?

ALGOREisRICH:
My, that's a lovely red herring there, friend. And whilst I like claret Clupeidae as much as the next man, they are fallacious. So maybe you could leave the posts about polygamy for the discussions about polygamy, and the posts about gay marriage for the discussions about gay marriage? Your assistance in contributing to the quality of the debate is appreciated.

<<how is my case any different from that of a homosexual?>>
The heterosexual's case (assuming this is what you meant) is different from that of a homosexual because the homosexual is statistically many, many times more likely to contract the STD's mentioned (as well as others) as a result of the nature of their behaviour.
Just google "centre for disease control homosexual"
for links like this one:
http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/docs/FastFacts-MSM-FINAL508COMP.pdf

"The heterosexual's case (assuming this is what you meant) is different from that of a homosexual because the homosexual is statistically many, many times more likely to contract the STD's mentioned (as well as others) as a result of the nature of their behaviour."
-Proxy

This is true. But marriage, while by no means ensuring monogamy, does a great deal to encourage monogamy. And monogamy is the 2nd best method after abstinence for limiting the spread of STDs. If you're so worried about STDs amongst the homosexual community, surely it makes sense to support marriage amongst homosexuals?

Hi there Riz

a couple of points.

You said:
//And some people find it more fun to shag someone of the same sex. Exactly what is so threatening about that notion?//

The threatening part is the 'baggage'....

a) The Gay lobby will never stop at 'equality'
b) They will hound and marginalize Christians and Churches
c) They seek to 'brainwash' the tiny innocent children with propoganda through education and media. (Play school..-2 mummies) and sex ed.

That is where the 'threat' is.

Now.. on the polygamy SSM thing. I'm afraid my comment was not a red herring. It came out of a personal encounter with Rodney Croome in Melbourne, where he was asked by Bill Muhelenberg why other types of 'family' patterns would not similarly cry out for recognition?

Polygamy is one such alternative 'family' pattern.

Nope.. can't see any red on that.
cheers

<<This is true>> (that homosexuals are statistically many, many times more likely to contract STD's) <<but marriage, while by no means ensuring monogamy, does a great deal to encourage monogamy.>>
Not homosexual "marriage".

Homosexuals redefinition of marriage includes jettisoning monogamy:
"Forty-seven percent of gay couples in a recently published study said that they had "sex agreements" with their partners, which clarify how often and in what circumstances they are permitted to have sex with others. Only 45% said that their relationships were monogamous, while another 8% disagreed about whether their relationship was “open” or exclusive, according to an ongoing study by the Center for Research on Gender & Sexuality at San Francisco State University."
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/jul/10072006.html

ALGOREisRICH, um, where to start...

a) The Gay lobby will never stop at 'equality'

Who is asking for more than equality? Rodney is arguing for gays and lesbians to have the same right to marry they person they love as straight people. It will have no impact on us straight people, except we get to live in a fairer society, which I am all in favour of. Wonder if anyone tried this "argument" against giving women the vote...ah, those women, they'll never stop at equality...hmmm....100 years later....

b) They will hound and marginalize Christians and Churches

What are you basing this on? Exactly how are or will Christians and churches be hounded or marginalised? Is is the large tax breaks for churches funded by us taxpayers that's bothering you? The overly deferential attitude to someone's interpretation of an old book? The exemptions from anti-discrimination legislation? Gee...poor churches.

c) They seek to 'brainwash' the tiny innocent children with propoganda through education and media. (Play school..-2 mummies) and sex ed."

Wouldn't be awful if children grew up with an understanding and respect of human diversity, it might actually produce a peaceful, happy and tolerant society. Couldn't have that, maybe no-one would need religion anymore...

Proxy, it's a bit rich dismissing polls with results you deem unfavourable (62% of Australians support gay marriage) while supporting findings of polls that aid your cause (47% of gay couples have sex agreements). What makes your poll any more valid than the other?

That said, when you start using terms like "gay bowel syndrome", your credibility really flies out the window.

"The threatening part is the 'baggage'....

a) The Gay lobby will never stop at 'equality'
b) They will hound and marginalize Christians and Churches
c) They seek to 'brainwash' the tiny innocent children with propoganda through education and media. (Play school..-2 mummies) and sex ed.

That is where the 'threat' is."
-ALGOREisRICH

a) How do you know that? It is impossible to have knowledge of the future. The best one can do is make predictions, and they're frequently erroneous.
b) See a).
c) As opposed to brainwashing the tiny innocent children with propaganda through the Church, education (SRE), media and advertising. That's OK 'coz it's only wrong for some people to brainwash children, right Al?

Face it, champ: there is no 'threat'. And I know what you're trying to do there: first you attempt to portray homosexuals as intolerant and militantly evangelical; then you mount an argument against the portrayal you just created, rather than mounting an argument against equal rights for all Australian citizens (which is what we're discussing). It's called 'creating a strawman', and unfortunately for you I'm no more fooled by strawmen than I am by red herrings.

Speaking of which: it doesn't matter in the slightest what type of encounter with whom prompted your comment, because you raised an argument about polygamy in a debate about homosexual marriage, and in doing so committed the fallacy of irrelevancy. Arguments about polygamy are relevant only to debates about polygamy, and the only arguments relevant to debates about SSM are arguments about SSM. Arguments not about SSM (e.g. about polygamy) are irrelevant, and when an irrelevant argument is used in an apparent attempt to distract from the issue being debated (as yours was), it is commonly referred to as a 'red herring'.

If heterosexuality is the norm, what threat can the Gay Lobby impose?

You cannot make a heterosexual into a homosexual by bestowing the same human rights on same sex marriage for goodness sake.

Al, you and I won't become gay overnight should the law change? Where do you get these thought processes from?

If you are gay you are gay if not you are not and some inbetween. Why deny these same rights to gay couples. It comes down to human decency and a desire not to demonise those who might be different to the norm, but whose sexuality is very much 'natural' to them.

The existence of ex-homosexuals,
eg,
Linda Jernigan,
Charlene Coltrane,
Michael Glatze,
Jackie Clune,
Janet Boynes,
etc,
demonstrates that homosexuality is not immutable.
The very act of attempting to normalise the abnormal will ensure that immature experimenters will become caught up in an unnatural and unhealthy lifestyle.
This is evidenced by the above-named, who tell of this very phenomenon.
Do we really want our boys to engage in activities which render them 50 times as likely to contract HIV - Aids?
Keep it in the cupboard where it belongs.

Proxy and Al Gore (ie Boaz) You really do have to explain why you have an obsession with Gay people, who are no threat to you and using the bible is a cop out ( even you two have no idea who wrote it!).
Though studies have shown (one for researcher Proxy!!), that people who have strong feelings of homophobia, have personal issues they have not addressed, or they have latent homosexual inclinations.

<<studies have shown that people who have strong feelings of homophobia have latent homosexual inclinations>>

How often do these dreary old canards get dragged out by the bereft of brain?

So here we go again -

Just like "studies have shown" that:
- people who object to shariah law have latent inclinations to behead infidels
- people who object to abortion have a latent desire to pull babies heads off with forceps
- people who object to the death penalty really want to pull the lever on some poor schmuck
- people who object to taxes are repressed tax collectors
- yada, yada, yada

Whereas, in the real world, studies have shown that people who mindlessly call people who disagree with them "....phobes", don't have an argument.

Proxy dearest,

> > people who mindlessly call people who disagree with
> > them "....phobes", don't have an argument.

Disagreeing with a homosexual is not homophobia, and no-one has claimed that it is. Arguing that some human beings deserve fewer rights because they are homosexual most definitely is homophobia.

> > <<studies have shown that people who have
> > strong feelings of homophobia have latent
> > homosexual inclinations>>
> >
> > How often do these dreary old canards get dragged
> > out by the bereft of brain?

Here's a link to the research paper that Kipp was referring to: http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/abn/105/3/440/

If the homophobia study is ever replicated in Australia, I would urge you to volunteer as a subject. I'm confident you would learn a lot about yourself.

Let's have the "bereft of brain" conversation again after you've provided some research backing up the following claims:

> > - people who object to shariah law have latent inclinations to behead infidels
> > - people who object to abortion have a latent desire to pull babies heads off with forceps
> > - people who object to the death penalty really want to pull the lever on some poor schmuck
> > - people who object to taxes are repressed tax collectors

"Medically, men who have sex with men (MSM) are disproportionately at risk for sexually transmitted infections (STI) and HIV (Diggs, 2002). The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Division of HIV/AIDS Prevention estimates that gay and bisexual men (men who have sex with men or MSM) in the United States are 50 times more likely to contract HIV than are heterosexual men (Lansky, 2009). This is largely due to having multiple sexual partners and engaging in risky sexual practices, including a high incidence of anal intercourse within this population (Diggs, 2002). For example, the estimated HIV risk with a single sexual exposure through receptive anal intercourse (2%) is 20 times greater than for receptive vaginal intercourse (0.1%), (Pinkerton, Martin, Roland, Katz, Coates, & Kahn, 2004).

Semen has immune-suppressant activity that increases the chance of sperm fertilizing a woman's egg during vaginal intercourse. If released in the rectum, however, semen makes this already vulnerable tissue more prone to both infection and the development of cancer - rectal carcinoma in MSM results from infection with a highly carcinogenic strain of HPV (Diggs, 2002). Of greater concern is that despite knowing the high risk of contracting HIV, many MSM repeatedly indulge in unsafe sex practices such as "bare-backing," i.e, deliberate, "unprotected" anal intercourse (Parsons & Bimbi, 2007; Parsons, Kelly, Bimbi, Muench, & Morgenstern, 2007; van Kesteren, Hospers, & Kok, 2007.) Homosexual women are also at higher risk for STI and other health problems than are heterosexual women (Evans, Scally, Wellard, & Wilson, 2007.)

The negative consequences of homosexual behaviors are not limited to the physical harms noted above. Compared to their heterosexual peers, homosexual high school students and young adults (fourteen to twenty-one years old) in New Zealand, which has a culture highly tolerant of homosexuality, had significantly higher rates of major depression, generalized anxiety disorder, conduct disorder, nicotine dependence, other substance abuse and/or dependence, multiple disorders, suicidal ideation, and suicide attempts (Fergusson, Horwood, & Beautrais, 1999)."

<<Arguing that some human beings deserve fewer rights because they are homosexual most definitely is homophobia.>>
Let's follow your flawed logic.
Incestuous couples are human beings.
Incestuous couples wish to marry.
They claim it is their right, just like everyone else has the right to marry.
You disagree that incestuous couples "deserve the right" to marry.
Therefore you are an incestophobe because "arguing that some human beings deserve fewer rights because they are incestuous most definitely is incestophobia".
Homosexual activists cannot legitimately argue for their "right to marry" without embracing the incestuous "right to marry".
You might salvage a shred of your personal credibility if you went public in support of the incestuous right to marry but then you would undermine public support for your own agenda.
An unfortunate dilemma inevitable arising from a hypocritical stance.

Proxy,

Just for a moment let’s forget whether a gay or straight life contains more hazards or whether flying or driving a car is more dangerous or whether being a vegetarian has more health benefits leading to a longer life than someone who eats too much meat or whether someone born in Somalia has less chance at a long and happy life than does the average Westerner and concentrate on a hypothetical situation you can engage in. You will notice, with some of the aforesaid situations a choice is possible, whist with others, it is not.

Now, just imagine you are at the podium in an auditorium and seated before you are the people from http://www.thepotentialweddingalbum.org/ whom I should imagine you have viewed and read of their stories.

What would you say to them, let’s say, in a fifteen minute speech promoting your minority view.

David

"The existence of ex-homosexuals,
eg,
Linda Jernigan,
Charlene Coltrane,
Michael Glatze,
Jackie Clune,
Janet Boynes,
etc.
demonstrates that homosexuality is not immutable."
-Proxy

Nice try, but evidence is NOT the plural of anecdote.

Furthermore, after a quick google search of the names listed, I was unable to find even a single anecdote which showed an unequivocal conversion from homosexual to heterosexual. I'm curious - was this a paralogism, or a poor attempt at a sophism?

"The very act of attempting to normalise the abnormal will ensure that immature experimenters will become caught up in an... unhealthy lifestyle."
-Proxy

A classic non-sequitur: the conclusion (that otherwise straight kids will turn gay) does not follow logically from the premise (that other peoples' support for SSM will cause this radical shift in sexuality). To be charitable, I will temporarily afford this non-sequitur the status of enthymeme: an argument which requires at least one additional premise to be considered valid.

I eagerly await your missing premise(s).

"This is evidenced by the above-named, who tell of this very phenomenon."
-Proxy

Now, what did I just say about evidence vs. anecdotes? You can't see it, but I'm rolling my eyes.

"an unnatural... lifestyle."
-Proxy

Incorrect. Homosexuality is an entirely natural phenomenon. Even if it weren't, does it really matter? Botulism, stillbirth, earthquakes, deadly nightshade and bowel cancer are all entirely natural phenomena. On the other hand, penicillin, computers and books are all unnatural phenomena. It should be apparent to all but the hard-of-thinking that 'naturalness'/lack thereof has no bearing whatsoever on whether something is good or bad. Once again, I'm curious - paralogism or sophism?

"Let's follow your flawed logic.
Incestuous couples are human beings..."
-Proxy

Ooh, I already know this one! It's a red herring.

Go back and read what I've said to Al about red herrings, then come back when you think you can formulate a decent response without recourse to fallacious arguments.

<<What would you say to them, let’s say, in a fifteen minute speech promoting your minority view.>>
What a bizarre little world you live in.
When you think that homosexuals are opposed by the majority you disparage the majority view.
When you think, based on biased data, that homosexuals are supported by the majority, "minority view" becomes a pejorative.
Why don't you just be honest and say that yours is the correct viewpoint whether or not the majority agrees with it.
What has atheism got to do with homosexuality anyway?

<<Nice try, but evidence is NOT the plural of anecdote>>
In other words, it doesn't matter how many ex-homosexuals come out to publicly warn of the dangers of the homosexual life-style, they don't exist because they refute your lie.

<<Homosexuality is an entirely natural phenomenon. Even if it weren't, does it really matter? Botulism, stillbirth, earthquakes, deadly nightshade and bowel cancer are all entirely natural phenomena. >>
Paedophiles have a very high rate of recidivism. Many claim it is who they are.
Fritzl said he was born to rape.
Are paedophilia and incestuous rape entirely natural phenomenon too?
Or are you merely saying that homosexuality is as natural as disease?

Proxy,

So you wouldn’t face to face with people who are in the sights of you bigotry.

Thought so. That why I asked the question.

‘What has Atheism to do with homosexuality?’ Simply that the main antagonists supporting homophobia are the religious. It’s just logic, try it some time.

David

Oh pet, have we upset you? Be careful now - you know you get over-excited at the sight of a bit of upfront ho-mo-sexuality: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3665#88901

> > You might salvage a shred of your personal credibility if you went public

This is a discussion about the civil rights of same-sex couples, and on that I'm very public, as you know: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3665#88509 The remaining content of your post is simply an attempt to derail the discussion with off-topic straw issues.

> > What would you say to them, let’s say, in a fifteen minute speech promoting your minority view.

David, this is an excellent question, and one I put to Proxy in a slightly different form five months ago: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3611#86544 I'm still waiting for an answer.

Proxy's is indeed a minority view. The Australia Institute's 2005 study showed that 35% of Australians think that homosexuality is immoral, a percentage that is likely to have gone down considerably since the data was gathered in 2003-2004 http://www.tai.org.au/documents/downloads/WP79.pdf Still, in our pluralist society, it would be useful to know to what extent Proxy's view is indeed a proxy for this minority. Do the 35% agree with him that gays should be forced back into the closet? Or is their view a little less extreme? The answers to these questions are needed to guide educators and policy-makers.

You’re right that Proxy’s view is associated with religious belief - indeed the two most public agitators against the rights of same-sex couples in Australia are fundamentalist christians. They present secular arguments, but their arguments are often dismissed as dogma. There’s a gap in the market, so to speak, for an informed non-religious opponent. Even though he’s clearly well-informed, here on OLO Proxy is widely ignored as an anonymous ratbag. He would be a much more effective proponent of his views if he came out from behind his shield of anonymity.

"In other words, it doesn't matter how many ex-homosexuals come out to publicly warn of the dangers of the homosexual life-style, they don't exist because they refute your lie."
-Proxy

Not at all. But anecdote is never an acceptable substitute for evidence. It meets about the same standard of proof as that time-honoured justification for false beliefs, 'what some bloke down the pub told me'. Which is an acceptable standard of proof when you're talking toot with your mates, but not when you're engaging in rational argument.

If there are so many ex-homosexuals out there, there is nothing stopping psychologists from designing a sound experiment, getting a research grant, and gathering some evidence. It is, after all, their job, and there are lot of researchers studying human sexuality. So furnish me with some evidence - not some anecdotes - and I'll be happy to discuss that.

"Are paedophilia and incestuous rape entirely natural phenomenon too?"
-Proxy

Sadly, yes. But cheer up, it's not all botulism and earthquakes and rape. Puppy dogs, rainbows, wildflowers, the beach on a hot summer's day and the view from the top of Kanangra Walls are entirely natural phenomena too. Once again for the hard-of-thinking: 'naturalness'/lack thereof has no bearing whatsoever on whether something is good or bad. Trying to argue that homosexuality is wrong 'coz it's natural and so is rape isn't any more valid than your last position, that homosexuality was wrong because it was unnatural. Talk about indecisive... not that I mind, as I do so enjoy watching you squirm.

"Or are you merely saying that homosexuality is as natural as disease?"
-Proxy

Yes... but I'm also saying that it's as natural as puppy dogs, rainbows, wildflowers, the beach on a hot summer's day and the view from the top of Kanangra Walls. And more natural than penicillin, computers and books.

"It’s just logic, try it some time."
-Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc

Ha! That'll be the day.

Iam wondering why all you strait people are so worried about what should not, bother you at all?

Its a changing world and if you don't allow it, it will just go underground along with most things the religious factions disagree with.

http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=4&ved=0CCAQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.answers.com%2FQ%2FHow_many_gay_people_are_there_in_Australia&rct=j&q=what%20is%20the%20number%20of%20gay%20people%20in%20australia%3Fyoutube&ei=-WfXTPCeHMKXcdXw4fcL&usg=AFQjCNEwn_DVyoMVQwIPNPw4MKZsleJMRA&cad=rja

This one has a nice little point in it about who's responsible for making them turn out the way they are, I think its you!

http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CBwQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DEtfTmmLGoCc&rct=j&q=what%20is%20the%20number%20of%20gay%20people%20in%20australia%3Fyoutube&ei=-WfXTPCeHMKXcdXw4fcL&usg=AFQjCNGXhE1dYx94dQvvED9lv7y5GkwHEw&cad=rja

You know the old saying , don't you....." Its the one's that scream the loudest in protest, that are the one's you have to watch.

Well! What better way of throwing the scent off those who enjoy opening the closet door and then jumping back in again.lol

Only if people weren't so full of it.

BLUE

As a CONSTITUTIONALIST (and INDEPENDENT candidate for the seat of IVANHOE see also http://www.schorel-hlavka.com) I view it is time we are realistic and not force upon people the opinions of others not just as an opinion but as to dictate what they can or can’t say. It is irrelevant to me if a person has a pro or anti gay opinion because we are under a federal constitution that has embedded in it “Political Liberty” and “Civil Rights” and that includes the right to express oneself in a positive or negative way about gay’s provided it is not a slanderous attack upon a specific person. I do not accept that the Victorian parliament or any other parliament can interfere with this “Political Liberty” and/or “civil rights” as any legislation that undermines this is unconstitutional and of no legal force. Our danger is more from those wanting to legislate our “Political Liberties” and “Civil Rights” out of existence then of the groups they purport to protect.

Diseases disproportionately contracted through homosexual behaviour:
Anal cancer,
Rectal cancer,
HIV,
AIDs,
MRSA,
Syphilis,
Gonorrhoea,
Hepatitis A,B,C...
etc,
etc.

What is so normal and natural about a behaviour which has such a high attendant disease risk?
Why would a sane society encourage homosexuality given the disease risk?

Dysfunctional sexual behaviours:
Homosexuality,
Paedophilia,
Bestiality,
Incest,
Necrophilia,
etc,
etc.

If a society becomes sufficiently insane so as to validate and hence encourage homosexual behaviour, why would it discriminate against other dysfunctional sexual behaviours. There is at least evidence that the dysfunctionality of paedophilia is socially constructed when you consider the Islamic penchant for sex with nine-year old girls based on Mohammed's example with Aisha. On the other hand, the dysfunctionality of homosexual behaviour is based on a logical analysis of disease risk and anatomical incompatibility, neither of which are factors in the widespread Islamic practice of child marriage. Although, admittedly, vaginal trauma in the very young may be a danger in much the same way that anal trauma is, given that the anus is designed for extruding excrement and not for receptive anal intercourse.

You have no logical comeback at the dysfunctional analogies which is why you always cry "red herring", "straw man", "bigot", "homophobe", etc.

Religion, like atheism, has nothing to do with it.
I embrace neither ideology.

Proxy

Facts mean little to those desperate for society to not only accept but also promote what is clearly not good for society. No one would dare do a study as to the percentage of priests who abused kids being homosexual.

"What is so normal and natural about a behaviour which has such a high attendant disease risk?"
-Proxy

It's natural because it is a naturally occurring phenomenon - one which occurs in nature with no artificial assistance. You seem to have some difficulty with this concept.

And it's normal because a lot of people prioritise other things above their health. For instance, I engage in a behaviour which has a very high attendant disease risk, which means I am more susceptible to at least these diseases, and probably more:

* Stroke and cardiovascular disease.
* Hypertension
* Left ventricular hypertrophy
* Oedema
* Duodenal and gastric ulcers
* Heartburn
* Osteporosis
* Gastric cancer
* Death

But you know what? I really like salt on my food, so I'm going to keep using it. What's the point of living to 100 if every meal you ever eat is bland? And that's just from one of my unhealthy habits - I'd go over my word limit if I tallied all the diseases I'm setting myself up for.

Why would a sane society validate and hence encourage high salt intake given the disease risk? More to the point, why aren't you out there in the trenches campaigning for less sodium in folks' diets? Could it be because you're less interested in public health than you are in bullying gay people?

To be continued...

continued...

"If a society becomes sufficiently insane so as to validate and hence encourage homosexual behaviour, why would it discriminate against other dysfunctional sexual behaviours."
-Proxy

Because every form of dysfunctional sexual behaviour you have listed, with the exception of homosexuality, is a form of rape. I don't need to explain to you why rape is a bad thing, do I? Do I?

Homosexuality is different because it involves two consenting adults of sound mind and judgement - if it doesn't, it's rape, and no better than pedophilia or necrophilia.

"You have no logical comeback at the dysfunctional analogies which is why you always cry "red herring", "straw man", "bigot", "homophobe", etc."
-Proxy

Not so. My logical comeback is that your analogies are disfunctional. Argument by analogy is a very tricky business, and the analogy you've attempted to draw 'twixt homosexuality and rape is deeply flawed, as I explained above.

I cry red herring when you use red herrings, straw man when you use straw men, bigot when you're being bigoted and homophobe when you're being homophobic. I'd be happier not to cry anything - all you need to do is learn how to formulate valid arguments. It really isn't that difficult.

"Religion, like atheism, has nothing to do with it."
-Proxy

Ha! That'll be the day. Why not just admit the truth: you don't like gay people 'coz the Bible says you shouldn't. There's nothing wrong with that - you just shouldn't expect non-Christians to accept Biblical teachings as readily as you do.

Tonight I was watching QandA. I was astonished with he simlicity of a questioner and then it dawned on me.

Here is her question.

Forget marriage! Why don't we simply require everyone to undergo a civil union amd those who wish to marry do so in their religious institution?

Wow so simle. I'd vote for that.

<<Because every form of dysfunctional sexual behaviour you have listed, with the exception of homosexuality, is a form of rape. I don't need to explain to you why rape is a bad thing, do I? Do I?>>

Are you suggesting that Mohammed raped his 9 year old wife Aisha?
That's not very multicultural of you.

Are you suggesting that loving, consenting, adult incestuous couples are rapists?
Are they both rapists, raping each other?
Who are you to deny their happiness?

Is bestiality rape if the animal doesn't object?

<<Why would a sane society validate and hence encourage high salt intake given the disease risk?>>

The human body requires salt.
The human body does not require anal/rectal trauma.
Excessive salt consumption can be harmful but so can excessive water consumption.
Anyhow, our society warns against excessive salt intake.
Too bad our society doesn't warn against the dangers of homosexual behaviour.

Proxy. I have read your posts, and can't see in any of you, that has nothing but concern for all.

You are a great mammal, and your word is strong.

I hope you keep posting.

Your read is good.

All one needs now, is a balanced, of the all.

BLUE

Nice try, Riz, indeed a very eloquent one.

Unfortunately no amount of eloquence will relieve some people’s anxieties about willies and botties.

funny... really amusing.

I can't even bother to read much of this posting.. just the end. Yes I agree why marriage? How long had that been around for? I called it a stupid piece of paper that bounds you for life.

Proxy: Any chance you can prove how excessive water consumption is bad for the body? the rest of most of what you last wrote here I disagree with.

Honestly? Try being born with the wrong genes, as a child, not being able to be comfortable with your sexuality, always judge and misunderstood. Umm.. they didn't have a choice, their parents made them that way? wrong chromosomes, is it their fault, or the fault of nature?

You only know what you have been taught. So what if other have different preferences. How is it you have some kinda right to say that their choices in live is wrong? Maybe you spend some time with a child who was born a boy and knows shes a girl. Spend half a year and feel her suffering, then maybe you will open your mind up.

ridiculous

and by the way.. AIDS and cancer was manufactured by governments. They did it wrongly on the animals they screwed up, and it spread. Who is to blame? The gays? really.....

"Are you suggesting that Mohammed raped his 9 year old wife Aisha?
That's not very multicultural of you."
-Proxy

Yes. It might be upsetting to some folk, but it is the truth. Children can't give consent, so any sexual act is, by definition, rape.

"Is bestiality rape if the animal doesn't object?"
-Proxy

Yes, bestiality is always rape. Animals, like children, are incapable of giving consent. Consent is very different to an absence of dissent.

"The human body does not require anal/rectal trauma."
-Proxy

It doesn't require heterosexual intercourse either - nobody has ever died from a lack of sex. On the other hand, a lot of heterosexual people have died from sexually contracted AIDS and syphilis and so forth. By your logic, heterosexual intercourse should be treated the same way as homosexual intercourse - neither is required for good health, and both have significant potential harm attached to them.

"Too bad our society doesn't warn against the dangers of homosexual behaviour."
-Proxy

Is this another lie, or are you just high? Every child in the country receives sex education in school, where the dangers of homosexual (and heterosexual) behaviour are firmly drilled into them. On top of that there are a whole slew of government and non-government organisations pushing the safe sex message. Just 'coz their approach to risk reduction is different to yours (safe sex instead of abstinence) doesn't mean they're not warning against the dangers and trying to promote better health.

"Any chance you can prove how excessive water consumption is bad for the body?"
-jinny

Hyponatraemia. Google it.

"and by the way.. AIDS and cancer was manufactured by governments"
-jinny

ROFLMAO. Huzzah! for paranoiacs keeping us all amused.

Proxy,

“Religion, like atheism, has nothing to do with it.
I embrace neither ideology.”

Atheism is not an ideology any more than not believing in fairies is. Because there is some common thought in Atheism, such as recognising the flaws in certain parts of religion, which infringe on human rights, that is no different from you recognising that wife beating is a bad idea. Ideology has nothing to do with it. It’s being able to recognise what is just.

This linking of Atheism with some kind of infered ‘evil’ ideology is pure fundamentalism and of course, it is bunkum.

It is interesting you state you don’t follow an ideology called religion. I guess that is the old canards of all the other religions are wrong but your idea of a god (From the Bible) is correct. That is an original thought, not!

Now, I could be wrong and you are not religious at all but if you weren’t such a sneak, I would know.

David

Proxy wrote: “Religion, like atheism, has nothing to do with it. I embrace neither ideology.”

So you’re telling us that you’re not a theist, and you’re not, not a theist?

How does that make any sense?

Anyway Proxy, I had already explained to you that atheist wasn’t a belief system (or ideology)...
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10321#169607

Just goes to show you don’t really listen to anyone.

You’re really pushing poo uphill if you want to claim that you’re not a theist while making the same stupid mistakes as them.

The reason Church'es are increasingly persecuted and marginalized by the Gay lobby is very straightforward.

God condemns homosexual behavior as follows:

Rom 1:26

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

COMMENT
You cannot remove this reality unless you remove the Churches.
Bob Browns communist Greens are making a good effort to do so... but over time, I think people will wake up to their nefarious scheme which after all.. serves the marital/sexual interests of one Bob Brown first and foremost.

<<You’re really pushing poo uphill...>>
What a wonderfully apt metaphor in the context of a discussion on homosexual "marriage"!

Proxy,

Instead of hanging around looking for some comment to which you can make a smart-arse response, how about answering the cacophony of objections to your bigoted outlook.

I would like you to start with what you would say to an auditorium filled with people fromhttp://www.thepotentialweddingalbum.org/supporters/.

Guess you are too gutless to do even this in a hypothetical sense.

I wonder who successfully screwed with your mind to bring such a pathetic outlook about humanity. You can change you know, but it takes a conscious effort.

Of course, if you are beyond changing, it could mean sociopathic tendencies have you in its grip. It certainly looks that way.

David

"smart-arse response",
"bigoted outlook".
"too gutless"
"screwed with your mind"
"pathetic outlook"
"sociopathic tendencies"

Your arguments above are the most cogent yet in support of homosexual "marriage".

"smart-arse response",
"bigoted outlook".
"too gutless"
"screwed with your mind"
"pathetic outlook"
"sociopathic tendencies"

Your arguments above are the most cogent yet in support of homosexual "marriage".

No Proxy, they are a response to your inadequacy at providing a cogent case in support of your bigotry.

These words are quite reasonable, although regretful in having to express them, to a thinking mind.

Let’s hope one day you can overcome your disadvantage in this area and you can join with the rest of a thoughtful humanity in accepting the differences in our species without unhelpful input from imaginary supernatural precepts

This is not just for those you vilify but also for your own sake regarding the only life you will ever have.

Think about it, think deeply and think long.

David

ALGOREisRICH.

Firstly, how can one take the words of an entity that has no foundation to the facts at hand regarding important discussions that obviously you cant bring your God to the table so we can here his/her claims on the matters at hand.

So........we just have to take your man written book as the word of the over-all mighty one and ruler/maker of the universe.

Or did you hear the man say it, that gays should be beaten spat at and loathed by all that have some dislike against loving and consenting adults in the hands of matrimony?

What Bob brown said in this link is quite correct.

http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBsQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.perthnow.com.au%2Fnews%2Fwestern-australia%2Fgreens-senator-bob-brown-says-gillard-wrong-to-oppose-gay-marriage%2Fstory-e6frg13u-1225886249111&rct=j&q=bob%20browns%20veiws%20on%20gay%20marriage&ei=-jbZTIeDLob0cb6ujYQI&usg=AFQjCNHcSTH4vMwR4lHR3ABiTKQPpuj0Iw&cad=rja

And this.

http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CCkQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.geelongadvertiser.com.au%2Farticle%2F2010%2F07%2F22%2F193541_news.html&rct=j&q=bob%20browns%20veiws%20on%20gay%20marriage&ei=-jbZTIeDLob0cb6ujYQI&usg=AFQjCNGg18TMsSE6C1N-6lp7aVmdOA4s4Q&cad=rja

When the people speak, its heard well.

BLUE

<<This is not just for those you vilify...>>
<<smart-arse...>>
<<bigoted...>>
<<gutless...>>
<<screwed...mind>>
<<pathetic...>>
<<sociopathic...>>
<<These words are quite reasonable>>

I get it.
I'm vilifying and you're being reasonable.
Glad we sorted that out.

wow... what a smart bunch of humans... :)

Proxy,

Stop using the hurt fawn defence. The only disadvantage you suffer because of expressive language is that your ‘opinion’ is not popularly supported as it once might have been. Society has grown but you have not.

On the other hand, your words added to those of the likeminded, cause actual suffering, sometimes death and at least social disadvantage.

You are the aggravator not the aggrieved.

David

> > I get it.
> > I'm vilifying and you're being reasonable.
> > Glad we sorted that out.

Oh darling, you're so cute when you pout.

I think that parliamentarians should have a conscience vote on every issue. That way much more progressive legislation would be passed.

Indeed, political parties should have no special status in parliament. They're not even mentioned in the Constitution.

Look who's out of rehab!

Welcome back, CJ

Wolfey :) no if CJ was in 'rehab' we could expect an improvement :) but it's the same old "progressive" stuff. But we need it for sure.. to highlight our own positions.

@BLUE... I'm sorry you don't share my belief structure.. we could agree more if you did. The thing is.. I'm not 'imposing' it on you, I'm putting it out there as part of our democratic society. I'm showing what a book which (according to a recent census) 69% of Australians are likely to regard as 'holy' says about the matter in question.

I have less than zero time for what Bob Brown says on the issue I'm afraid.. he and his ilk.. Rodney Croome and other activists care nothing for how the rest of society feel, they simply want to CHANGE us..and that to my mind is 'imposition'. I've watched Rodney in Action and met him personally.. a very nice bloke to be truthful, except when you push his buttons on this kind of issue..then he becomes deceptive and evasive, which is understandable as he is only interested in making 'his' case and changing our law.

Such are most politicians.

<<On the other hand, your words added to those of the likeminded, cause actual suffering, sometimes death and at least social disadvantage>>

My words don't cause homosexuals to suffer and die.
Homosexual behaviour is the root cause of their suffering.
Homosex > disease > suffering > death.
It is statistically demonstrable.

If you're alluding to homosexual suicide, it is consistently higher than that of normal people even in countries where homosexual marriage has been legalised.

I am neither "the aggravator (nor) the aggrieved".

I'm just bringing facts to the table-

Homosexuals: one percent of the population
Homosexuals: 53% of all new HIV infections, (add more diseases here...)

Why is it so?

Homosexual behaviour.
Fact.
Not to warn children of the vastly higher danger of homosex versus normal sex is a crime.

@Riz

//Go back and read what I've said to Al about red herrings, then come back when you think you can formulate a decent response without recourse to fallacious arguments.//

Sorry Riz, your classification of alternative views as 'red herrings' is transparently rejectionist. You don't like that view so.. simply attack it or blame it, or make it walk the plank... but accept it as a valid democratic view ? nope.. don't see that.

But rejecting a report of an actual incident which reflects the position of the Gay Lobby (from it's 'father superior' Rodney) ? that's bigotry mate.

He said "That won't happen"
I showed "It's already happened"

Nothing 'red' or fishy about that.

Proxy,

“My words don't cause homosexuals to suffer and die.”

Please quote what I said. Your words and those of the likeminded.

“Homosexual behaviour is the root cause of their suffering.”

Bit of a Freudian there, hey. This is incidental, the same as syphilis is incidental. Education and condemnation would be a big help with this.

“It is statistically demonstrable.”

So is death by car accident. Why aren’t you railing against that?

“If you're alluding to homosexual suicide, it is consistently higher than that of normal people even in countries where homosexual marriage has been legalised.”

Supply a non Christian reference for that. Gay and lesbian people are hounded about their sexuality at a time when they are formulating a world view. It is not surprising that there are more suicides.

“I am neither "the aggravator (nor) the aggrieved".

You are the aggressor in vilifying homosexuality. More than a little over the top and I wonder why?

“I'm just bringing facts to the table-“

You are so good. Who are you trying to help with these selected facts?

“Why is it so?

Homosexual behaviour.”

Sexual behaviour has its dangers. No news here.

“Not to warn children of the vastly higher danger of homosex versus normal sex is a crime.”

‘Warn’ is a poor choice of words. What about inform them in comprehensive sex education classes. Oh, I forgot, you would rather keep children ignorant of their sexuality. Some see this as hypocrisy especially about those who rabbit on incessantly in a homophobic manner.

Continued next Post.

“Homosexuals: one percent of the population
Homosexuals: 53% of all new HIV infections, (add more diseases here...)”

A source would be nice for the 1% figure from a non Christian location. And who cares if they are .5 of a percent. Oppression is oppression is oppression and is not dependent on numbers of the oppressed.

Do you mean 53% world wide. If so, supply a source that is non Christian.

By the way, have you had a good look at The Potential Wedding Album? http://www.thepotentialweddingalbum.org/

What did you think? Give us your thoughts.

And, what do you want. For lesbians and gays to give up sex or for them to turn straight?

Do you know any homosexual people?

David

1% of population is homosexual:
http://www.gcn.ie/feature.aspx?articleid=2939&sectionid=14
That would be "Gay" Community News, a right wing fundamentalist Christian web-site.

53% of new HIV infections are homosexual:
http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/docs/FastFacts-MSM-FINAL508COMP.pdf
That would be the Centers for Disease Control, a propaganda organ for the Vatican masquerading as a US govt agency.

Proxy,

I must correct myself. I said, “This is incidental, the same as syphilis is incidental. Education and condemnation would be a big help with this.”

I meant to say, “This is incidental, the same as syphilis is incidental. Education without condemnation would be a big help with this.”

Here is a more realistic look at the stats on the number of homosexual numbers. And as I stated, even if it is half of one percent, oppression is still oppression.

And of course, the stigma perpetuated by you and you ilk makes the gathering of stats on this subject very difficult. You really are a creep. Add that to your list.

http://gaylife.about.com/od/comingout/a/population.htm

Causes of infection. (Reasonably common figures)

http://www.avert.org/worlstatinfo.htm
"Globally, around 11% of HIV infections are among babies who acquire the virus from their mothers; 10% result from injecting drug use; 5-10% are due to sex between men; and 5-10% occur in healthcare settings. Sex between men and women accounts for the remaining proportion – around two thirds of new infections."

This does lead to the glaringly obvious question as to why you have to exaggerate everything in the negative about homosexuality.

And can you answer the other questions I have posed or don’t expect to be taken seriously.

David

"Sorry Riz, your classification of alternative views as 'red herrings' is transparently rejectionist. You don't like that view so.. simply attack it or blame it, or make it walk the plank... but accept it as a valid democratic view ? nope.. don't see that.

But rejecting a report of an actual incident which reflects the position of the Gay Lobby (from it's 'father superior' Rodney) ? that's bigotry mate."
-ALGOREisRICH

How can I explain this any more simply?

I am trying to have debate about homosexuality.
You were attempting to introduce an argument about polygamy.
Polygamy is not the same as homosexuality. Look it up in the dictionary.
Arguments whose subject matter is A, in a debate about B, are irrelevant, and hence fallacious.
Arguments about A intended to distract discussion away from B are called red herrings, and they're definitely fallacious.

It's not bigotry, it's logic. Again, consult a dictionary. A decent book on introductory logic might also be a wise investment.

"Homosex > disease > suffering > death.
It is statistically demonstrable."
-Proxy

Yes, it is. But there are thousands of nouns and verbs that I could substitute for 'homosex', and still have your assertion be peferctly sound. You seem strangely focused on just one of the many, many things that lead to disease and death. Doesn't the other 99% pf the population deserve some of your compassion*?
*sarcasm

"Fact.
Not to warn children of the vastly higher danger of homosex versus normal sex is a crime."
-Proxy.

Fact: children already are. As I've already said, this sort of thing is covered in their PD/H/PE lessons. No, they don't have the teacher stand up in front of the class and scream 'being a faggot will kill you', as I'm sure you'd like them to. This is because teenagers are naturally cynical, and will regard such extreme assertions with the appropriate level of scepticism.
to be continued...

...continued
Now, Proxy, a question which puzzles me: if homosexuality is the driving force behind the AIDS epidemic, why is that Africa, the continent with the highest rates of AIDS in the world, is home to many countries where homosexuality is illegal, and many more where homosexuals are persecuted? And why is it that countries which are tolerant of homosexuality, such as many European nations, enjoy comparatively low HIV-AIDS rates?

@RIZ

you claim you are trying to have a debate about homosexuality.

But your TITLE is about VOTES and PARLIAMENT.

Don't you read your own stuff?

Thus you have politicized this issue which effects the community.

The issue I was reporting on had a CONTEXT and the context was:

"Legalize Gay Marriage" at a seminar.

A question was raised about the social IMPACT of legalizing gay marriage.

"If gay marriage is legalized, what is to stop MANY OTHER types of unusual or un-natural patterns of familiy life claimign EQUAL right to legalization"

The ANSWER from Rodney Croome was: "Australia is a traditional one man one woman society, so it won't happen"

I THEN showed you that it HAS happened with polygamy being just one of NUMBER of unusual or un-natural patterns of 'marriage' which did exactly as Bill Muhlenberg suggested it might..and that Rodney Croome denied. Croome's argument (and yours) is spurious, Bill M showed why!

It's not a red herring.

> > no if CJ was in 'rehab' we could expect an improvement :)
> > but it's the same old "progressive" stuff. But we need it
> > for sure.. to highlight our own positions.

And to keep us on topic. Of the 79 posts to this discussion so far, CJ’s is the only one addressing the argument raised in the article.

Like a referendum, a conscience vote sounds like a good idea. This is what we elect our parliamentarians for - to weigh up the relative merits of an issue, and dispassionately determine the outcome on our behalf. We choose parliamentarians who reflect our values and represent our interests, not those of their party. Still, there are some givens that we don't allow parliamentarians to vote on, whether by conscience or following a party line. For example they can't pass any measure that contradicts our Constitution or our country's external obligations.

Unlike some countries, our Constitution contains little protection for minorities. I tend to support the argument that basic human rights should not be subject to the vagaries of individual parliamentarians' consciences, but I also think that our parliaments are sufficiently diverse to counterbalance this.

So should parliamentarians have a conscience vote on same-sex marriage? In principle, no. However in practice I think that our MPs are sufficiently informed, conscientious and representative on this issue to be trusted with it.

Of course, it's all academic, because a conscience vote is proposed only for Labor Party members (and the independents, of course). There's absolutely no hope that the Greens bill will be passed, because Labor won't be voting as a block, but the opposition parties will be. The real outcome of a conscience vote will be that our elected representatives will have a thorough and sincere debate on same-sex marriage, no doubt bringing to the discussion the same high standards of deliberation that they showed in the RU486 debate.

This is a discussion Australia needs to have. I say bring it on.

Boaz,

The question you pose: "If gay marriage is legalized, what is to stop MANY OTHER types of unusual or un-natural patterns of familiy life claimign EQUAL right to legalization", is fallacious because it assumes that your idea of usual/natural is the right one.

Ignoring that though, I think the answer to the question is: nothing. But that doesn’t matter because they won’t ever be successful.

Take polygamy for example. It won’t be legalized because it’s degrading to women. Even if the women in polygamous relationships consent to it, it’s still offensive to a society that values women as equals and so it will never happen.

How about your personal favourite, NAMBLA? Such relationships will never be legalized or condoned by the general population as young boys are not considered old enough or mature enough to give their consent.

As for the other one you like to mention, bestiality, not only can animals not give their consent, but in many cases it would be considered cruelty.

So you don’t need to worry, Boaz. There is no impending doom. Societies will continue to decide what is generally best for them using the same non-religious, non-biblical mechanism they have always used.

Altruism.

"It's not a red herring."
-ALGOREisRICH

That's about the fourth time you've said that now. Funnily enough, I'm unable to find the bit in my logic textbook where it says 'fallacious arguments can be rendered valid by sufficient repetition of the assertion that they are valid'. So it really doesn't matter how many times you reiterate your red herring, nor how often/loudly you insist it's not fallacious. It won't strengthen your argument - all it will achieve is making you look a goose.

I have no doubt, however, that your response to this will be the all too predictable 'it's not a red herring'. So I give up - I'm throwing in the towel on this point (although not conceding it - I'll just ignore it from now on). You can lead a horse to logic, but you cannot make him think. I see little sense in bashing my head against a brick wall any longer.

<<I tend to support the argument that basic human rights should not be subject to the vagaries of individual parliamentarians' consciences>>

Homosexual "marriage" is no more a "basic human right" than incestuous marriage or polygamous marriage.

"However in practice I think that our MPs are sufficiently informed...".

Informed by the lies of the homosexual lobby.
The 10 percent lie.
The homosex is no more dangerous than heterosex lie.
The children are no worse off lie.

Homosexual activists are like those screaming children in the supermarket aisle.
The more concessions, the more demands.
Our society has become like the weak mother who submits to her child's railroading in the hope that granting their ever-more strident demands will placate them.

Homosexual "marriage" will merely be the starting point for screaming demands for punishment of those who still won't toe the homosexual line.

Churches will be sued for failing to provide the homosexual's "basic human right" to get married there, etc, etc.

Homosexual "marriage" will only be the beginning of a new wave of increasing demands.

Homosexual activism is merely a variant form of totalitarianism.

Very funny, Proxy but you don’t really believe that stuff do you?

Do you!

I never realised I was a part of totalitarianism.

Gosh, this is very exciting. Now, where is my apricot silk shirt with the ‘Make love not war’ logo and my velvet lined jack-boots and oh, oh, don’t forget the saffron encrusted whip for blushing the flesh, not damaging it. Maybe this is what you have meant all along. Silly me didn’t recognise the symptoms.

It is totalitari-anism you are talking about, after all, isn’t it?

Big kisses,

David

"Homosexual "marriage" is no more a "basic human right" than incestuous marriage or polygamous marriage."
-Proxy

Red herring; duly ignored.

"The 10 percent lie."
-Proxy

Sorry, but when did human rights become contingent upon the third kind of lie? I think I missed that memo.

"The children are no worse off lie."
-Proxy

Oh, please, won't somebody think of the children?

Spare us your platitudes and explain to me how, exactly, children will are made off worse by tolerance for homosexuals & their matrimonial rights. Bear in mind that we've already established that tolerance for homosexuals does not turn straight people gay.

"The more concessions, the more demands."
-Proxy

Prove it.

"Homosexual "marriage" will merely be the starting point for screaming demands for punishment of those who still won't toe the homosexual line."
-Proxy

Prove it.

"Churches will be sued for failing to provide the homosexual's "basic human right" to get married there, etc, etc."
-Proxy

Prove it.

"Homosexual "marriage" will only be the beginning of a new wave of increasing demands."
-Proxy

Prove it.

"Homosexual activism is merely a variant form of totalitarianism."
-Proxy

Prove it.

woulfe: << The real outcome of a conscience vote will be that our elected representatives will have a thorough and sincere debate on same-sex marriage, no doubt bringing to the discussion the same high standards of deliberation that they showed in the RU486 debate. >>

Exactly, which is why I think the 'conscience vote' should be the norm rather than the exception. I take your point about the Constitution, but if we can't get conscience votes on human rights issues in Parliament, what chance do we have of changing that anachronistic Act of the British Parliament?

P.S. Thanks for the welcome back, but you know about the success rates of involuntary rehab, don't you?

RIZ

The gay lobby (and Individual gays) will PERSECUTE Christians and Churches.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1577982/Bishop-fined-in-gay-discrimination-case.html

My own fellowship has now been persecuted by gays:

http://www.saltshakers.org.au/component/content/article/85-front-page-news/703-church-camp-loses-discrimination-case

PROVEN.

Homosexual totalitarianism:

"Post-election Violence and Harassment over Prop 8, is it warranted?"
http://activelyout.com/activeDiscussions/forum/10360

Proven.

Proxy,

Why yes, that is what totalitarianism is? Ha ha ha dee ha.

Do you actually know what totalitarianism is? It doesn’t look like you actually do.

Promises to commit violence by persons unknown, is that what your little mind thinks it is?

You are a funny person. :))

David

> > Homosexual activism is merely a variant form of totalitarianism.

Yes, the homo-taliban are out there, building their strength, preparing to strike. Soon there will be bands of ho-mo-sexuals roaming the streets setting fire to mullet haircuts and bombing mac-mansions. After that, they'll be training five-year-olds as fifth-columnists - should your soufflé sag or your socks match someone else's tie, it could be your own child that turns you in.

They're monitoring this very discussion, paying particular attention to those who've already worked out their plan. Flee! Immediately! Soon it will be too late: they'll be forcing you to attend nightclubs at five in the morning, rainbow-dye your pubic hair and open all your orifices to any male who fancies you.

Run! Save yourself! Now!

"PROVEN."
-ALGOREisRICH

Yes, congratulations, you've just sucessfully proven that Christians who break the law sometimes get punished for it. Thanks, but I wasn't actually asking for proof that the judiciary had done their job and upheld the law (note past tense), I was asking for proof that the gay lobby will persecute (note future tense) Christians.

"Proven."
-Proxy

"Totalitarianism (or totalitarian rule) is a political system where the state, usually under the control of a single political person, faction, or class, recognizes no limits to its authority and strives to regulate every aspect of public and private life wherever feasible."
-Wikipedia

I read your article, Proxy, but I couldn't find any references to totalitarianism. I did find descriptions of a bunch of violent idiots, but you get violent idiots at the fringes of every ideology. The existence of gay-bashers doesn't make the anti-gay lobby a totalitarian regime, does it now?

Oh, and a brief caveat: when you start throwing terms like 'totalitarianism' around, you come dangerously close to violating Godwin's law. I advise you to choose your arguments with more care.

To those who have feelings of self insecurity and need a soft target like gay people, to release these feelings, live, love and just be you, and life will be wonderful.

Well said, Kipp. Very succinct and to the point.

David

People who would impose their distorted ideology on children so that those children would be forever deprived of having, or even knowing, a father and a mother are not soft targets.
People who deliberately generate false research data on the effects of their activities on children simply to further their agenda are not soft targets.
People who deliberately agitate to withhold life and death information on the statistically manifest dangers of their sexual behaviour from young children in classrooms are not soft targets.
People who deliberately lie by knowingly claiming greater numbers than they actually represent in order to further their agenda are not soft targets.
People who viciously target ex-members of their ranks whose very apostasy undermines their claims are not soft targets.
People who use violence and intimidation against those who refuse to capitulate to their agenda are not soft targets.
People who seek to change the law by any means possible to achieve their agenda and then use the law to persecute those who won't capitulate to their agenda are not soft targets.

Goodness, what a lot of ‘people who’. What about ‘people who’ have forsaken reality or have had it taken away from them without them knowing, should try and think above the belt.

David

All that I have stated I have previously substantiated.
This makes no difference of course to those who relentlessly pursue their agenda irrespective of the facts or the deleterious impact on children.
They can only respond in riddles.

"People who would impose their distorted ideology on children so that those children would be forever deprived of having, or even knowing, a father and a mother are not soft targets."
-Proxy

Last time I checked this was still a scientific impossibilty, Proxy. Humans reproduce sexually, and we're not up to cloning just yet. All children have a mother and father, and no amount of homophobia will alter this biological fact.

As for the question of children knowing their biological parents: if gays are evil, so are folk who make use of surrogates, IVF and adoption. How many adopted children do you think get the chance for a meaningful relation with their biological father? Does it really matter? Single parents seem to do just as well as couples when it comes to raising kids - surely two mums/two dads would be at least a little bit better than just one parent?

"People who deliberately generate false research data on the effects of their activities on children simply to further their agenda are not soft targets.
People who deliberately agitate to withhold life and death information on the statistically manifest dangers of their sexual behaviour from young children in classrooms are not soft targets.
People who [blah, blah, blah]..."
-Proxy

I concur. Whoever these 'people who...' are, they should not be regarded as soft targets. I just don't see what this has to do with homosexuality.

Unless of course you're trying to insinuate that homosexuals equivalent to 'people who...'. In which case:

Prove it. 'Coz thus far, I've seen no evidence that would support your list of assertions. And where I come from, unsubstantiated allegations count for bugger all.

Proxy,

Yes, your concern for children’s minds is admirable…Not!

I wonder if it is more that you are concerned for your own mind.

If not, you should be :))

David

As I said, I have previously substantiated at OLO all of my above claims and I've long experienced your strategies to discredit, deny and wear down by this process.
Nevertheless, here's a new example that I haven't formerly documented which exemplifies homosexual activists lack of credibility:
"Child abuse rate at zero percent in lesbian households new report finds"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/10/lesbians-child-abuse-0-percent_n_781624.html
A report by homosexuals on self-reporting homosexuals can always be guaranteed to find what it wants to find.

Meanwhile:
"Two lesbian women charged in boy's torture"
http://www.streetgangs.com/features/two-lesbian-women-charged-in-boys-torture
The fact that their sexuality was mentioned proves that the report is homophobic!

"Gay couple left free to abuse boys - because social workers feared being branded homophobic
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-480151/Gay-couple-left-free-abuse-boys--social-workers-feared-branded-homophobic.html#ixzz15Vspm1FO"

Meanwhile, also in the UK:
"UK Couple Challenge Pro-Gay Views over Fostering Ban"

So, in the world that you people are forcing on innocent children, decent, caring, normal people who want to foster children can't because they don't embrace a radical, abnormal, unnatural agenda whereas homosexual paedophiles are protected from enquiry because of their sexuality and black lesbians don't torture little boys because a report by homosexuals says that they don't.

And you reckon there's something wrong with MY mind.

The missing link:
"UK Couple Challenge Pro-Gay Views over Fostering Ban"
http://rowlands.maars.net/?p=6538

Yikes, they're black.
To say that they are homophobic is racist...
That does not compute...
Liberal meltdown...

"As I said, I have previously substantiated at OLO all of my above claims"
-Proxy

No, you haven't. I've already explained the difference between anecdotal evidence and scientific data. Which means you're either wilfully ignorant or you're incredibly slow. I suspect the former.

"So, in the world that you people are forcing on innocent children, decent, caring, normal people who want to foster children can't because they don't embrace a radical, abnormal, unnatural agenda whereas homosexual paedophiles are protected from enquiry because of their sexuality and black lesbians don't torture little boys because a report by homosexuals says that they don't.

And you reckon there's something wrong with MY mind."
-Proxy

Yep, and this quote pretty much confirms it. 'Coz if you actually believe this:
"homosexual paedophiles are protected from enquiry because of their sexuality and black lesbians don't torture little boys because a report by homosexuals says that they don't"
then you are obviously delusional. You also seem to be somewhat paranoid. I suggest a visit to your GP, who should be able to give you referrals for appropriate psychiatric treatment.

PROXY! thanx for that link to the fostering couple.

The mind BOGGLES at how sinister and pernicious is the Gay Lobby/Political Correct Beaurocrats, that in a country where the MONARCH is head of state and Church...they could claim that 'Christians' are unfit to foster because of their 'unnacceptable' beliefs about homosexuality?

Welllll..l the marginalization is almost complete.. pretty soon it will be Christians to the London Colloseum and the lions will be unleased to make sport of their helpless bodies.

It might help us to know the philsophical background to all this, and you will now 'see' why I've raised threads about the History of PC.

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

But this pattern of beginning persecution of Christians is quite in line with the communist Herbert Marcuse's essay in 1965
"Repressive Tolerance" 1965

PARAGRAPH 1

//THIS essay examines the idea of tolerance in our advanced industrial society. The conclusion reached is that the realization of the objective of tolerance would call for intolerance toward prevailing policies, attitudes, opinions, and the extension of tolerance to policies, attitudes, and opinions which are outlawed or suppressed.//

and...there you have it.

What he REALLY mean't was "Intolerance towards Christians and their beliefs" = "true tolerance".

A bit like Noel Ignatiev "Treason to the white race is loyalty to humanity"

Me thinks it's time for conservative forces to wake up, get up and GET OUT on the streets!

I can't bestow on you the capacity to reason or logically process information but I can try to simplify it further for you.
You take exception to my statement <<homosexual paedophiles are protected from enquiry because of their sexuality>>
Perhaps you never read the link. It happens.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-480151/Gay-couple-left-free-abuse-boys--social-workers-feared-branded-homophobic.html#ixzz15Vspm1FO"
The link reads (in part):
"A homosexual foster couple were left free to sexually abuse vulnerable boys in their care because social workers feared being accused of discrimination if they investigated complaints, an inquiry concluded yesterday.
In other words, the homosexual paedophile foster "parents" were protected from enquiry because everybody was afraid to discriminate against them because of their sexuality.
This accords with my statement.

You also take exception to my statement <<black lesbians don't torture little boys because a report by homosexuals says that they don't>> which points out that the claim by homosexuals that the child abuse rate in lesbian households is zero percent is contradicted by a news report of lesbians engaging in child abuse.
The homosexual claim is disproved by the news story.
ie The claim that <<the child abuse rate in lesbian households is zero percent>> is shown to be false.
Untrue.
Propaganda.
You can't uphold the veracity of a claim when there is contradictory evidence.

But according to you, homosexual "research" reports produce "scientific data" and contradictory facts as reported in the news are "anecdotal evidence".

I don't mind you wanting to live in bizzarro world but I object to you wanting to drag innocent children down there with you.

"Perhaps you never read the link. It happens."
-Proxy

Quite right, I didn't read the link. I've already informed you of my dim view of anecdote in the place of evidence, and I am choosing to ignore your anecdotes. When you can provide me with some evidence, I'll be happy to pay attention to that.

"contradictory facts as reported in the news are "anecdotal evidence".
-Proxy

Yes. And supporting facts as reported in the news are anecdotal evidence. Any fact reported in the news is anecdotal evidence. News reports are a subset of the category 'anecdote'. It's not the nature of the fact that makes it anecdotal; it's the medium. A newspaper article just doesn't meet the same standard of proof as a peer-reviewed journal article. Crikey mate, this isn't rocket science.

"I don't mind you wanting to live in bizzarro world but I object to you wanting to drag innocent children down there with you."
-Proxy

Yeah, me wanting kids to live in a world where the scientific method takes precedence over superstition, prejudice, opinion etc. makes me a real monster. Those poor innocent kids, they'll forced to live in a world of evidence-based policies where reason assumes a position of primacy. How awful for the poor little tykes! Good thing you're here to think of the children, and save them from this horrible bizzarro world of logic and empiricism.

Proxy,

“And you reckon there's something wrong with MY mind.”

Well, yes, obviously. See, you do get some things right. Not many mind you.

David

The majority of states don't permit same-sex marriage by law. But as Time magazine accounts, technology is giving same-sex couples more options for holding a ceremony than ever in the past. For instance, one same-sex couple in TX recently tied the knot via the online communication service Skype, in what is being called an “<a title="More same-sex partners thinking about e-marriage" href="http://personalmoneystore.com/moneyblog/2010/11/15/e-marriage-same-sex-skype/"> e-marriage</a>”

"But as Time magazine accounts, technology is giving same-sex couples more options for holding a ceremony than ever in the past."
-samuelxian

That's lovely, but e-marriages aren't recognised by Australian law. If all gays wanted were the ritual trappings of marriage (frocks, cake, bouquets, ushers, etc.), they could enjoy all of those without actually getting married. Gays aren't pushing for marriage so they can enjoy pointless frippery, they're pushing for marriage so that they can have the same legal rights as the rest of humanity.

Which seems fair enough. After all, they are part of humanity. Why shouldn't they enjoy the same rights as the rest of us? The reasoning that says it's OK to arbitrarily diminish the rights of some subsets of humanity is precisely the same reasoning behind apartheid. Do you support apartheid, Proxy? If not, why not? Note that the last two questions are not rhetorical. I want answers.

If homosexuals are allowed to marry then its only fair that incestuous couples, polyamorous groups and bestial couples or groups are allowed to marry.
They should enjoy the same "fundamental human rights" as homosexuals.
"The reasoning that says it's OK to arbitrarily diminish the rights of some subsets of humanity is precisely the same reasoning behind apartheid.
Do you support apartheid?"
You cannot logically differentiate yourselves from the practitioners of other deviant forms of sexual behaviour.
By the reasonable measure of fecundity, homosexual behaviour is more deviant than at least two of the three other behaviours I have mentioned.

Wow! Proxy, you are one sick dude. Seek professional help.

Don't waste your life in this wasteland of hateful ignorance. I wonder if someone has damaged you or this is just your twisted nature. A cure is possible but I doubt it.

Sorry you have to live like this. It must be absolutely awful.

My condolences.

David

As a self-professed atheist, what possible objection could you possibly have to loving, incestuous couples seeking happiness together and enjoying the same societal recognition that you would confer on others?
Why do you deny them their basic human rights?
Why do you discriminate against certain members of society on the basis of their sexuality?
I find your stance hypocritical, to say the least.

No Proxy, it's because I am not an idiot!

David

"If homosexuals are allowed to marry then its only fair that incestuous couples, polyamorous groups and bestial couples or groups are allowed to marry."
-Proxy

If you insist, dear. But it's worth noting that the only person on this whole forum who has consistently pushed for equality for polygamy, bestiality and incest is Proxy himself. Is there something you're not telling us?

"They should enjoy the same "fundamental human rights" as homosexuals."
-Proxy

Only by your sick and perverse reasoning. We don't all like to bang our cousins, mate - why don't you just keep it in the family?

"You cannot logically differentiate yourselves from the practitioners of other deviant forms of sexual behaviour."
-Proxy

Yes, I can. And your misuse of plurals is misplaced.

"By the reasonable measure of fecundity, homosexual behaviour is more deviant than at least two of the three other behaviours I have mentioned."
-Proxy

Apparently I missed the memo about fecundity and homosexuality. Care to refresh me?

David the Atheist.

Sorry mate.. you have zero credibility because you cannot address the clearly morally superior arguments of Proxy.

You are simply calling him names.. the obvious sign of 'no' argument.

The case is closed and the argument won by those who care about the texture, shape and morality of our society. I.e...those WITH an argument, such as Proxy and myself and I'm sure, others.

David..here is how it works.

POSITION=> IMPLICATIONS
E.G.

Position: "White People are all evil"
Implication "There is a whitey...he must be evil"

If you don't have the reasoning powers to dispute with rational logic..why bother at all?

You just make yourself a laughing stock I'm afraid.

I won't be signing up for the AFA :) and I hope those who DO have a much higher level of polemical standing than what's being demonstrated here by your good self.

I'm not trying to 'flame' you.. I'm simply responding to the 'name calling' you espouse which IS flaming!

RIZ...you are as guilty as David for flaming.

"Only by your sick and perverse reasoning."

Nope..not by sick OR perverse reasoning....but by reasoning which any philosophy 101 student would agree is 'completely appropriate'.

It seems those in the opposing camp are infected with the 'liberal gene' which prevents them (you) from actually being able to follow the normal sequence of 'position/implication' as any rational person would do.

You are also resorting to name calling! and thus, we can consign your meagre (empty/vacuous) attempts to argue a case to the rubbish bin named "poor debate, if it can even be called that"

You and David both need help... to enable you to recognize that with those liberal genes, you are incapable (without significant mental detoxification and therapy) of seeing a rational logical sequence of argument.

The genes only 'push' you in a direction.. 'predispose' so to speak...but you have a will..and in time you will be able to recognize when your genes are speaking against rationality and make appropriate decisions by force of will.

"Sorry mate.. you have zero credibility because you cannot address the clearly morally superior arguments of Proxy...
The case is closed and the argument won by those who care about the texture, shape and morality of our society. I.e...those WITH an argument, such as Proxy and myself and I'm sure, others."
-ALGOREisRICH

ROFLMAO.

"David..here is how it works.
POSITION=> IMPLICATIONS
E.G."
-ALGOREisRICH

Wow, who taught you this 'logic'? The logic that philosophers use and teach involves conclusions being drawn from premisses. I've never heard the terms postion and implication being used in this manner, which leads me to suspect that you haven't actually studied any logic at all. Isn't it awfully arrogant of you to assume that you know more about the subject than somebody who has actually studied it?

"but by reasoning which any philosophy 101 student would agree is 'completely appropriate'."
-ALGOREisRICH

ROFLMAO. Proxy's appalling reasoning takes this form:

(1) Homosexuality is morally equivalent to bestiality, necrophilia and other forms of rape.
(2) We don't allow those who practise bestiality to marry animals.

Therefore: We should not allow homosexuals to get married.

Which would be a sound argument, were it not for the fact that premise (1) is false. Homosexuality is not morally equivalent to bestiality etc.; it is morally equivalent to heterosexuality, bisexuality and asexuality. The only people I've ever encountered who believe homosexuality is morally equivalent to rape appear to be Proxy and yourself (which makes you a smaller minority than Holocaust deniers, though just as erroneous), and I have my suspicions that you only cling to this demonstrably false belief because it validates Proxy's dodgy syllogism.

ALGOREisRICH,

You and Proxy are incapable of logical discussion. Possibly because of a susceptibility to cultural/religious indoctrination coupled with a genetic propensity towards gullibility.

I would think that opinion would have a consensus amongst rational people who frequent these forums.

That you can't see this, certainly indicates a comprehension problem or an inability to think outside your own thoughts.

That may or may not be curable.

David

I was not the one who used the false rape analogy.
I have never discussed homosexuality in terms of morality.

"And they were all issues on which, in the progressive circles that controlled public discourse, only one point of view was permitted. All dissent was mocked, vilified, and treated as totally beyond the pale. But since that dissent very often consisted of stating the facts in the face of ideology, prejudice or even – as with the deranged and obsessional hysteria against Israel – genocidal bigotry, reason itself along with the defense of life and liberty seemed to be turning into truths that dared not speak their name.

Please don’t mistake me – I’m not saying that there aren’t legitimate differences of opinion on such issues. But what I’m talking about goes beyond genuine disagreement. I’m talking about the sheer impossibility of bringing facts and evidence to the table, as it were, because the ‘progressives‘ hold that there simply cannot be any alternative to their ‘received truth’. They are in short impervious to reason, so that those who try to inject some evidence or alternative ways of thinking into the debate are demonized as evil or insane. These ideologies rest very often upon distortions, fabrications and lies, and yet intimidate opposition into silence. And that’s very frightening. It’s a totalitarian mindset."

The World Turned Upside Down
Melanie Phillips
http://frontpagemag.com/2010/11/18/the-world-turned-upside-down/

"I was not the one who used the false rape analogy.
I have never discussed homosexuality in terms of morality."
-Proxy

Really? I could have sworn you did. But there is nothing wrong with changing your mind. So let's see your new argument against gay marriage, expressed in proper logical form, i.e.:

(1) Some premise
(2) Another premise
(3) And just keep on adding premisses until you have all that you need to establish your conlusion.

Therefore: Conclusion

A clever bloke like you should have no trouble doing that.

Another reason that homosexual activists don't want a referendum on "gay""marriage"
and another victory for the people and decency:
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=223585

"With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil—that takes religion."
Steven Weinberg

"Another reason that homosexual activists don't want a referendum on "gay""marriage"
and another victory for the people and decency:"
-Proxy

Hmmm, no proper logical form there. And I only skimmed through the link, but I couldn't find it there either.

So I guess you're just not that clever.

<<With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil;
but for good people to do evil—that takes religion.>>

People who "behave well" are by definition "good people".
People who "do evil" are by definition "bad people".
With or without religion.

Your oft-quoted truism is a falsism.

Proxy,

Thought that would prick the very little bit of conscience they have left your with.

David

Who are you to say that "they" have left me with very little conscience and on what basis?
And who are they?
Why are you apparently incapable of addressing an issue and seemingly only capable of insulting your betters?

Proxy,

Apparently, but only to you.

David

Proxy, you seem to be struggling with this logical argument business, so I thought I'd give you an example to help you out.

(1) Proxy can only put forward a deductively valid argument against gay marriage if he can formulate such an argument, or if he can borrow one formulated by somebody else.
(P v Q) -> R
(2) Proxy can formulate a deductively valid argument against gay marriage, or he cannot.
P v ~P
(3) Proxy can borrow a deductively valid argument formulated by somebody else, or he cannot.
Q v ~Q
(4) Proxy cannot put forward a deductively valid argument.
~R

Therefore: Proxy cannot formulate a valid argument or borrow one that somebody else has formulated.
~(P v Q), from (1) and (4) (modus tollens)

Quod erat demonstrandum.

And that, Proxy, is how you formulate a deductively valid (and so far, sound) argument. Now, is that really so hard? Logic is easier than long division. Can you do long division, Proxy?

If homosexual "marriage" is legalised it is only fair, reasonable and just that:
Child marriage,
Incestuous marriage,
Polygamous marriage,
Bestial marriage,
be legalised.
Why should people who want to marry children, their kin, multiple people or animals continue to suffer from the same "discrimination" that "gay" people suffer?
There are vastly more cultural and historical precedents for child marriage, incestuous marriage and polygamous marriage than there are for homosexual "marriage".
Pakistanis commonly marry their first cousins.
Children in Islamic countries are routinely married off.
Men in Islamic countries often have multiple wives.
All of the above are increasingly occurring in slowly but inexorably Islamifying Western countries.
There is no logical or moral basis for the claim that homosexuals in Australia have the "basic human right" to marry over and above similar claims by paedophiles, incestuous or polyamorous couples.
In the same spirit, practitioners of bestiality should also enjoy the same social recognition and opportunity for happiness.

If poofs want to get married why cant the one who wants to be the wife just have a sex change

Then nobody woud have to change our holy laws

Proxy, constant repetition of rhetoric doesn't actually make it more convincing. It certainly doesn't make it a deductively valid argument. And the only case in which you'll find folk who might consider absurd rhetoric like this:

"If homosexual "marriage" is legalised it is only fair, reasonable and just that:
Child marriage,
Incestuous marriage,
Polygamous marriage,
Bestial marriage,
be legalised."

to be convincing is when you're preaching to the choir. Thankfully, it's a very small choir.

Why don't you just admit the truth, Proxy: you don't have any logical reasons for opposing gay marriage, you just don't like gay people very much. Your opposition to gay marriage is based not on reason, but on gut instinct - on emotion. There's nothing inherently wrong with having illogical beliefs; everybody has some, even me, and it is no more my place to force the Teachings of Surak onto others then it is theirs to force their views on me. However, it is highly disingenuous of you to claim that your position is based on reason when it is actually based on your gut feelings. And it is quite absurd to claim that arguments based on gut feelings carry as much weight as those with a basis in reason.

"If poofs want to get married why cant the one who wants to be the wife just have a sex change"
-Huggins

Because you're a complete bloody idiot, that's why.

"Then nobody woud have to change our holy laws"
-Huggins

Nobody is proposing changes to holy laws, just the secular ones. Offences against God are not the concern of man. This is why blasphemy is a sin but not a crime.

Thats not very nice Riztoo and u also didnt answer my question.

Proxy wrote: “There is no logical or moral basis for the claim that homosexuals in Australia have the "basic human right" to marry over and above similar claims by paedophiles, incestuous or polyamorous couples.”

Actually there is, and I believe I already covered that above...
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11169#188821

The comparison is invalid.

"Thats not very nice Riztoo and u also didnt answer my question."
-Huggins

No, it isn't very nice. Neither is calling homosexuals poofs. Matthew 7:5, champ: "Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye."

In answer to your question: homosexuals are not transexuals. Consult google or a dictionary. If two male homosexuals get married, neither wants to be the wife - they both want to be the husband. Finally, gender reassignment surgery is fairly radical surgery - it's expensive, and it carries the risks inherent in all surgery, such as post-operative infections and death. Isn't it a tad unreasonable to suggest that people undergo radical surgery just so they don't offend your religious beliefs?

Speaking of judging people, homosexuality and transgenderism:
"California elects nation's first openly transgender judge"
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2010/11/17/2010-11-17_california_elects_nations_first_openly_transgender_judge_victoria_kolakowski.html?r=news
Is the seriously disturbed person described in the article
transgendered, transsexual, a female homosexual or a male lesbian??
Or all of the above?
This confused soul will be judging normal people?
Expect more of this sort of thing in the new bizarro world brought to us all by "progressive" "thinking".
Hell, we already have the Organisation of the Islamic Conference defining human rights as well as Saudi Arabia adjudicating on women's rights in the United Nations.
Why can't we have transgendered homosexuals teaching our children about sexuality?
I'm sure we already do.

"Is the seriously disturbed..."
-Proxy

Sorry, I read the whole article carefully, but I couldn't see the bit where it said she was 'seriously disturbed'. Was it written in invisble ink? No, hang on, that doesn't work on computer screens. Was it written in invisble pixels? Or is this just a really poor attempt at an ad hominem attack against somebody who's not present to defend herself? If so, that is very unsporting of you, old chap - I am deeply dissapointed.

"...person described in the article transgendered, transsexual, a female homosexual or a male lesbian?"
-Proxy

Transexual. Is there a prize if I win your quiz?

"This confused soul will be judging normal people?"
-Proxy

Funny, I don't recall your article making any mention of her being confused. But let's pretend she is to answer your question - that way, the answer only depends upon the definition of 'normal people'. I contend that nobody is normal, so she'll only be judging abnormal people.

"Why can't we have transgendered homosexuals teaching our children about sexuality?"
-Proxy

Ooh, I know! Pick me, sir! It's because such a notion scares the pants of Proxy, and anything which scares Proxy is necessarily* a BAD THING.

*NB: It isn't actually a matter of logical necessity, Proxy just mistakenly believes it is.

"I'm sure we already do."
-Proxy

Awwww... would you prefer a handkerchief or a tissue?

I appologize Riztoo. I didnt realize that your a Sodomite.

Many thanks for explaining about transexxuals and homos.

"I appologize Riztoo. I didnt realize that your a Sodomite."
-Huggins

Yeah, sodomite is also insulting. Although not to me, 'coz I'm heterosexual. Assumption is the mother of all [expletive deleted]-ups, Huggins.

Huggins you sound like a "Caring and sensitive" person, what do you think is needed to address the statistics; that a young gay person is five times more likely to suicide than a hetrosexual young person?
Could it be the derogortory comments and stigma they have to experience daily, by those who either are without any social skills, or indifferent to the wellbeing of their fellow human beings.

Sodomite is what homos are called in the Holly Bible. If young homos dont want to kill their selves they should come to Jesus.

Jesus can cure anything thats what miracles are.

Huggins, your whole argument just failed by your insulated religous comment. The essay is about human rights for all, without hinderance as you yourself enjoy, and which will have no affect on your life, whatsoever.

The young "gay" person probably committed suicide because they found out they have AIDs, considering the likelihood is 40-80 times greater than from normal heterosexual relations.

<<According to the non-partisan Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the risk factors for youth suicide are:
-History of previous suicide attempts
-Family history of suicide
-History of depression or other mental illness
-Alcohol or drug abuse
-Stressful life event or loss
-Easy access to lethal methods
-Exposure to the suicidal behavior of others
-Incarceration
Not a mention of homosexual oppression.
Could it be because CDC data is fact-based,
unlike homosexual activist propaganda
where the ends justify the means?
No lie is too big if it advances the cause.
http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/dvp/suicide/youthsuicide.htm

The World Health Organisation gives suicide statistics for countries, albeit in age-amalgamated form.
Lots of luck using that data to "prove" that homosexual-friendly countries have lower suicide rates although I'm sure our homosexual activists will manage to find what they want to find.
http://www.who.int/mental_health/prevention/suicide/suiciderates/en/>>

Proxy the WWW is a great outlet for those with personal issues, and for you its not a help.
Go and speak to someone, as your postings indicate that need.

"(British Columbia's) attorney general has asked the B.C. Supreme Court to determine whether the law against polygamy is consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and if charges may only be laid when the polygamous relationship is with a minor or involves abuse."
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/polygamy-case-opens-in-british-columbia-supreme-court/

And why not?

Canada already allows "gay" "marriage".

Why wouldn't they be looking at polygamous marriage?

Anything else would be polyphobic.

Come on you homosexual activists.

Don't tell me you're polyphobic!

That would be inconsistent of you.

Almost hypocritical.

If you allow one type of dysfunctional sexual preference you've got to allow them all.

Not that polygamy is particularly dysfunctional.

At least there are cultural and historical precedents and it's not particularly fraught with disease risk.

Not to the degree that other topical sexual preferences are anyway.

And polygamous relationships are naturally fecund unlike some unnatural relationships.

Proxy, I rest my case; get help!

Proxy,

It is interesting that you mention the word dysfunctional in regards to sexuality. I would not hesitate to say that the general opinion of your bigoted rubbish is viewed in this way by most sane people.

Of course, this is not a crime in itself, but it is really, really sad.

David

<<I rest my case; get help!>>
How can you rest your case when you haven't even made one?
Furthermore you appear incapable of rebutting mine.

dysfunctional:
- Not operating normally or properly

Clearly homosexual behaviour is sexually dysfunctional.

It is clearly not normal.
How can it be normal when it is practised by only 1-2% of the population?
What part of the word normal don't you understand?

The penis and vagina "operate properly" together.
They are sexually and biologically and mechanically and reproductively compatible.
As per the natural order.

The penis and anus do not "operate properly" together.
They are sexually and biologically and mechanically and reproductively incompatible.
It is a disordered pairing.

Hence the preponderance of anal trauma, anal cancer, HIV AIDs and manifold other STD's, etc, amongst practicioners of anal sex.

An animals vagina is more physiologically compatible with a human penis than is an anus.
Is that any basis to endorse bestiality?

Why are you incapable of discussing this reality and seemingly only capable of attacking the messenger?

The author might better concentrate on real issues facing his bedfellows:

UN General Assembly Votes To Allow Gays To Be Executed Without Cause:
http://vladtepesblog.com/?p=27711

This may not be the time to be campaigning for "gay" "marriage" in Africa, the Middle East or the Carribean.

"Jesus can cure anything thats what miracles are."
-Huggins

Why doesn't Jesus cure amputees?

"Clearly homosexual behaviour is sexually dysfunctional.

It is clearly not normal.
How can it be normal when it is practised by only 1-2% of the population?
What part of the word normal don't you understand?"
-Proxy

Apparently the bit that makes it synomynous with 'common'. Homosexuality may be rare, but that doesn't make it abnormal - human albinism, haemochromatosis, 130 IQ's and Down's syndrome are all rare - are they abnormal? I'm certain you wouldn't tell the mother of a Down's syndrome child that they had a freak baby. That would be insensitive. So why is it okay to label homosexuality, and apparently only homosexuality, as 'abnormal' - and bully them accordingly - when everybody else gets off scot free?

Dear dear Proxy...what would we do without your posts ?

THANX...

I want to take it a step further about executing gays.

Here is the bit:

http://vladtepesblog.com/?p=27711

Gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people were once again subject to the whims of homophobia and religious and cultural extremism this week, thanks to a United Nations vote that removed “sexual orientation” from a resolution that protects people from arbitrary executions. In other words, the UN General Assembly this week voted to allow LGBT people to be executed without cause.

Notice the words "A United Nations Vote"....oooooh yeah..we need to DECODE this and see what's really there.

Hmmmm *thinks* ummmm.....could it BE the OIC?(Organization of Islamic Conference voting block of 56 nations? ? ?)

//The UN General Assembly’s Third Committee on Social, Cultural and Humanitarian issues removed “sexual orientation” from a resolution addressing extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions this past week in a vote that was overwhelming represented by a majority of African, Middle East and Carribean nations.//

All I can say is that NEXT time you progressives and leftards go out in support for some 'accomodation' for Islamic ways.. remember to put on your industrial strength 'ass' chastity belt because such an idiotic move will come back to BITE-CHA. (as it has done here)

So some moslems are as intolerant and irrational as some christians. What is your point?

Yes AGiR,
As you would know, I am a long-time multiculturalist and supporter of the United Nations.
We need to remember that diverse countries have diverse ways of doing things.
Some in the West might think that executing homosexuals is harsh but who are we to judge another culture or say that our way of responding to the relentless homosexualisation of our culture is better than their response.
All cultures are different but equal.
Perhaps those countries have observed what is happening in the West and determined that the only way to stop the homosexual juggernaut is through tough love.
It seems to be working for them.

Proxy,

“We need to remember that diverse countries have diverse ways of doing things.
Some in the West might think that executing homosexuals is harsh but who are we to judge another culture or say that our way of responding to the relentless homosexualisation of our culture is better than their response.”

If this were my Forum, I would have you banned. I would not do this as a matter of denying free-speech but in the cause of limiting the promotion of homicidal idiocy.

You are one sick dude.

David

<<If this were my Forum, I would have you banned. I would not do this as a matter of denying free-speech but in the cause of limiting the promotion of homicidal idiocy.>>

I should clarify that I am not engaging in homocide or even promoting it but merely reporting on diverse countries whose culture appears to predispose them toward engaging in such activities.
Perhaps you should be addressing them.

Your response appears to be consistent with the "progressive" trend of shooting the messenger rather than actually condemning the perpetrators.
Seems queer to me.

Get off the grass, Proxy. You are promoting that what these ignorant countries do is OK. You are a F*^*^n idiot.

Do you say the same about how they treat women or, heaven forbid, apostates (Atheists)or is it just saved for same sex oriented people?

Get a life.

David

"Perhaps those countries have observed what is happening in the West and determined that the only way to stop the homosexual juggernaut is through tough love.
It seems to be working for them."
-Proxy

"I should clarify that I am not engaging in homocide or even promoting it but merely reporting on diverse countries whose culture appears to predispose them toward engaging in such activities."
-Proxy

Sorry, I'm confused, Proxy: are we meant to be condemning the cultures who attempt to stop the homosexual juggernaut through tough love, or are we meant to be condemning those barbaric, murderous religious zealots who are an affront to common decency? With all the condemnation flying about, I forget who I'm supposed to hate.

<<Sorry, I'm confused, Proxy>>
Recognition and admission are the first steps toward healing.

<<are we meant to be condemning the cultures who attempt to stop the homosexual juggernaut through tough love, or are we meant to be condemning those barbaric, murderous religious zealots who are an affront to common decency?>>

Calling people from other cultures "barbaric, murderous religious zealots" just because they execute homosexuals is not very inclusive.
You need to understand that their holy books compel them to act in this manner.
Education is the key.

"Recognition and admission are the first steps toward healing."
-Proxy

My, what a clever witticism. My sides positively ache with mirth.*
*sarcasm

"Calling people from other cultures "barbaric, murderous religious zealots" just because they execute homosexuals is not very inclusive."
-Proxy

Yeah, but if they murder homosexuals for religious 'reasons' (read: homophobia dressed up in religious justifications), then they are barbaric religious zealots. So bloody what if it's not 'inclusive'? I'm not very inclusive of wife-beaters and rapists either. Are you going to have a cry about that too? No, I thought not.

"You need to understand that their holy books compel them to act in this manner."
-Proxy

Their holy books don't compel them to do a damn thing, and you know it. Remember before when we talked about behaviour being a choice? Or do suffer from what the medical profession know as 'convenient amnesia'?

"Education is the key."
-Proxy

Not always, 'twould seem. Then again, you just could have missed out on a lot of education. That would actually explain a great deal.

Riz and David... come back when you are both off the ill after effects of whatever medication you seem to be currently effected by .....

For goodness sake... you blokes just don't get Proxy (or me most likely) you are trying desperately to take him literally when he is CLEARLY speaking tongue in cheek on some matters.... learn to discern.

He is SHOWING how stupid it is for the Left (which seems to 'include' a rather high percentage of gays) to constantly support Muslim trampling of our laws, culture and rights without you blokes knowing the slightest thing (it would appear) about the faith itself.

I'll spelllll it out for you 2

1/ "ISLAM" ie...the faith..the fundamentals the foundational documents are clear that the punishment for homosexuals is death.

2/ THE UN is infected with a voting block called the OIC (56 nations)
Organization of Islamic Conference.

3/ THEYYYYYYY are the ones influencing the UN to rescind the inclusion of "sexual orientation" on the list of attributes for which people cannot be arbitrarily executed.

and (the mind boggles) you attack PROXY ? ? ? ?

He's not advocating anything remotely like executing gays.

But RIZ...you take the cake.

"So some moslems are as intolerant and irrational as some christians. What is your point?"

There is no biblical justification for such executions NOW.(New Testament era) In the case of Islam, it is Sharia law. Even if you look up the Canon Law of Protestant Churches you won't find execution for gays there.

We DO NOT teach our children that gays should be executed but guess.. just GUESS who does?
http://www.gaylgbt.com/blog/gay-rights/change/2010/11/saudi-schools-in-the-united-kingdom-teach-children-to-execute-gays/

A-gain...and you are attacking PROXY? *wake up*

Whats Islam and the UN and whatever got to do with Gay Marraige in Australia? Im a Christian and not a fan of Homosexality but I cant see why Queers cant marry each other if they wants to, who are they hurting?

Also I think Proxys posts must be just trolling because theyre so rude and over-the-top, he must have had a bad experence with a Homosexal when he was a kid or something

Don't wake them up AGiR.
You'll spoil my fun.

"You'll spoil my fun."
-Proxy

What, you enjoy constantly being wrong? How queer.