Cedarj have you spoken to a counsellor about your confusion, in the understanding of sexual orientation.
There has also been a medical study that indicates, people with strong homophobia attitudes, are inclined to have latent homosexual tendencies themselves.

CedarJ,

“God bless you!”

Excuse me but that is stupid. I do not need a mythical creature to ‘bless me’ whatever that means or entails.

You have to stop hiding being its skirts and run your own life and be prepared to look after people who need assistance. Gays are such people. Don’t let the god delusion turn you into an uncaring monster. History shows it can do that.

David

Dear Cedar J.,

You ask why must the "millenia concept of
marriage change?"

Put simply - because it has.

"Everything changes," observed the ancient Greek
philosophers Heraclitus. It was he who pointed out
that a man cannot step twice into the same river -
for he is not quite the same man, nor is it quite the
same river. This principle applies to every phenomenon
known to us, from the dance of sub-atomic particles
to the expansion of the universe, from the growth
and decay of living organisms to the development
of individual personality.

Looking at history you may recall the transformation that
accompanies the shift from traditional, pre-industrial
society to modern, industrialised society.

No society can successful prevent change, not even those that
try to do so. The question of how, why, and in what specific
ways change occurs remains one of the most intriguing and
difficult problems. However pretending that it's not going to
happen - is not a very realistic outlook and as I stated in
my previous post - there already exists an immense range in
marriage, family, and kinship patterns. You can't prevent
change but you can voice your objections to it on this issue
if you feel so strongly. Contacting your Member of Parliament
would be a good place to start.

cont'd ...

Of course you have to realise that you are in
the minority. Most Australians do support
same-sex marriage.

AFA, I am sorry, but I don't understand what questions you are referring to.

You say...You did not answer the questions on the examples I posed (sigh) but let me get this straight. Those who end up with an STD because of hetero or homosexual conduct, a risk with having sex, should be financially penalised for this. Is that what you think?

Well no, but you must agree that we are referring to a very small minority, who, by the very nature of their actions, place themselves, and their partners at what can only be considered as higher risk, therefore if they contract a STD, then one must consider this as self inflicted harm, one that is avoidable, esspecially if they participate in their act without protection, which by the way is readily available.

As for free health, I think I have made my position quite clear, however, like in most situations, there can be exceptions.

rehclub,

Here is the question I asked. “Why are you only obsessed about a (particular type of) sexual behaviour, all of which can be risky by the way?” I have added the bracketed wording for clarification.

There are numerous high risk behaviours and I gave a few examples. A lot of sexual behaviour has the potential to infect a partner and the answer is to be aware of prevention methods. Most people in educated countries are aware and take the proper precautions whether they are heterosexual or homosexual.

If you continue with the ‘minority’ argument line I’m afraid you will lose me. This is about human rights and equality. Minority or majority is a smoke screen.

David