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.