Re: ".... our kids are being exposed to sexualisation in the classroom at increasingly younger and inappropriate ages."
This is completely untrue. By the time kids get to school, girls have been on the pink-purple brick road to being a princess for most of their lives. And boys have been shoved down the green-blue brick road to being emotional thick-heads. They are already reacting to stigma of being different and are adjusting themselves to meet the expectation of their parents and the adults around them. TV and pop culture are the issues. Schools are left to try to encourage rational thinking and deconstruction of the barriers already put in place. We have a culture that unnaturally pushes apart the genders and schools are the last who should be blamed.

I'm sorry Al, perhaps you didn't intentionally create a straw-man to destroy but you did because you argue about things you don't understand. Re Gattaca: it was insensitive of you to not realise we GLBTI have had that type of judgmental unrealistic discrimination for all of our lives. You still don’t get it that you must carry some of the homosexual alleles that polygenetically determine sexuality. It isn’t gay people who need to fear genetic testing but bigots who refuse to be honest and responsible for their or their family’s genetic contribution to the next generation.

You don't need faith in science -just contemplate the wonders it has produced like your computer. People love their technology and their medical care but when it comes to climate change, sexuality and anything else they don’t like they run away to the refuge of religion and dare to call it faith.

Do you know the scientific method? Blind faith is the antithesis of science. The whole idea is NOT to require faith but to look for the answer. From my career in genetics and molecular biology and lecturing on the scientific method, the worst scientists that I worked with were those who had too much faith in their own abilities and ideas and consequently did not check if their methods worked correctly every time or test other ideas to see if they were better explanations.

Al, regarding your logic 1) Spitzer’s results falsified themselves but he wouldn’t admit it until now and then he didn't have the guts to publish a formal retraction. Despite scientific opposition it was used by the ‘moral’ religious right. Like you keep referring to 'the gay gene'. Media morality should now dictate that his retraction is mentioned whenever his work is. To say it is "irrelevant to highlight" is immoral within my moral framework.

Logic 2) Judge the animal kingdom (which does include us)? You are trying to get everything to fit your judgement. It is rather embarrassing when other animals without much thought can cope with diversity but we struggle because of blind judgment.

Logic 3) Clearly you are wrong because homosexuality has persisted for millions of years and grown through the mammalian lineage. If bisexuality isn’t in your argument then you are definitely off track. Obviously many who are homosexual do breed and they do it well. Take gulls where a third of the colony can be lesbian - great for boom-bust ecosystems as you can share the males for a quickie. But our clever judgmental society has separated homosexuals from family - not very long ago many more of us would have had our own kids or would have looked after that of our extended family – with low life expectancy, often this would have been as parents. The latter fits with polygenetic determination of homosexuality - whilst not reproducing ourselves we assist the persistence of the gene pool that made us. Rather like an asexual worker bee. Perhaps the evolutionary benefit is extensive bisexuality, with very few absolute heterosexuals, that stops men from killing each other – history doesn’t look good on that does it?

What connects this to the marriage debate is that the prohibition is based on lies about biology (you haven’t even read about it Al), morality and the consequences of stigma and discrimination. The presence of this schism proves to me, and increasingly others, that there is no divine inspiration, just bad culture and lack of religious freedom for GLBTI.

Eric G, regarding Gattaca, yes, my point was exactly that there would be people that would abuse it if you could find it and test for it.

Regarding people being judgemental against your way of life, I actually have a better understanding than you think because secular society is quite intolerant towards the religious nut jobs (you'd never get that opinion from some of the comments in this thread I'm sure). As an example, the animosity we received just asking to hire a public hall for 2 hours a week (when it wasn't being used) was quite incredible. Some time after I read an article in the paper about a "gay night" at one of the bars. Had I not gone through our hiring experience, I would have had the usual disdainful reaction, but all I felt was compassion because "I got it" - all they wanted was a "safe" place to meet free from prejudice and persecution.

Just as I'm sure the GLBTI community doesn't like to be stereotyped, to suggest that many Christians don't feel the same way about how their beliefs are portrayed or deliberately misunderstood is an understatement. And don't get me wrong, some Christians need a serious attitude adjustment in terms of their response to gay issues, but my fundamental concern is that, as we've seen in other countries, the Church is going to be hit vexatious discrimination claims. Persecuted becomes the persecutor is not a good solution.

For what it's worth, I have trans friends and gay relatives (and secular, atheist, agnostic and those of other religious persuasions). As people we respect each other, but we have different world views and we don't agree on everything.

Regarding evolution, that's a topic for another day, maybe over a beer :)

Posted by Eric G,/quote..""Do you know the scientific method?
Blind faith is the antithesis of science.""

yes an interesting point
how do you explain..the claim..'evolution'[macro..]
;as in mutating..*out of one genus
and creating..[evolving]..into other genus

DO YOU HAVE ONE..fully faulsafyable witness
[let alone any 'science proof.!
of a change of genus..

[as postulated..by many
by faith in..the THEORy of evolution}

i have asked many
but you make this high claim

""The whole idea..is NOT to require faith
but to look for the answer.""

so have you the proof of even one genus
evolving into any other genus

like that postulated..by the now busted..THEORY
[the tree of life project]..and the destruction of taxonomy..as being 'science'

see..as you know
many genus..are loosing their claimed genus relations
[via dna not validating gene linkage[let alone evolution..exta genus

seems many divergent mutations create..a phenotype[looks like]
but..*we now KNOW..their dna..isnt validating the genetic's evolving[as the theory..*would need..to be science]

most hold theory
but you claim fact

please lets get serious..

if you dont got the science
the theory is void..[based on fossil;ie.lookslike..
not genomic linkage proof for genus evolution..by actual[not theoretical..[genotype]

the tree of like..is more a forrest
please..name the first ';life..[by genus]
and what it evolved into[by genus][..with dna..to link fact with fact

not faith with theory

""From my career in genetics and molecular biology..and lecturing on the scientific method,..the worst scientists that I worked with were those...*who had too much faith!!

""in their own abilities and ideas
and consequently did not check if their methods worked correctly every time or test other ideas..to see if they were better explanations.""

i dont want a better story
I WANT SCIENCE PROOF..the dna linkage[genotype]

not looks like..[phentype]
[what are the bounds..of genus]

where is evolution..out/of[from]..parental genus..
in mendelic ratio's..
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=13479&page=0

"one under god" your question is disrespectful to everyone because it is such an unintelligible mess. You want to be serious, then try editing before posting including deleting your other 2 posts that were off topic garbage dumped in this forum.

What you seem to be asking is for someone to have witnessed events that take thousands of years. That is as silly as saying you will only believe in Jesus and his 'miracles' if you can firstly meet Noah, Moses and King David in their home country not heaven. You seem to suggest some theories have been busted when they have had a new lease of life. You are asking for a thesis of what would be off topic.

Ps. A falsifiable witness would be a false witness, ie wrong not right