Homosexuality is somewhat different to a predisposition to sexual promiscuity. Men, whether gay or straight, appear to have this disposition. Women, generally speaking, are more inclined to be monogamous. However, this is not the case with every man or every women. On the other hand, every gay man by definition, has a sexual orientation towards his own sex. There are no exceptions. If a gay man had a genuine sexual orientation towards some men and some women he would actually be bisexual.

In terms of people changing their sexuality, I'd say people can change but not consciously in the way you or I might decide to change the way we go to work or our career choices. There is a degree of sexual fluidity in human life as you illustrated with the example of the (former) gay man you know. And it works the other way. The Reverend Dorothy MacCrae-MacMahon came out as a lesbian relatively late in life. Sheila Jefferys, in her work The Lesbian Heresy, cites examples of women who never thought of themselves as gay when they were young coming out in their 40s or 50s.

I also hold my views not only in terms of my sexual orientation but in terms of my moral values as a Quaker. We value gay and lesbian relationships as much as other loving, committed relationship.

David JS, for your sake let’s keep off the topic of promiscuity among gay and straight men. Since statistics have shown time and again that gay men are much more promiscuous than straight men, and are far less likely to have long term relationships. For this reason, I think time will prove that in the couple of countries that have legalized gay ‘marriage’, the gay ‘divorce’ rate will be significantly higher, too. However, we’ve wandered from the original topic, so let’s get back to it.

Back in 1994 the homosexual spokesman Michelangelo Signorile said that homosexuals should “fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely…to debunk and radically alter an archaic institution. The most subversive action lesbians and gays can undertake…is to transform the notion of ‘family’ altogether.”

The claim that marriage is archaic seems to be a recurring theme among homosexuals, but is fundamentally and totally flawed. By definition something is archaic when it has belonged to an earlier time, but is no longer relevant. The family i.e. mum, dad and a few kids, is just as relevant and necessary today as it has always been. If we put all values aside, and look purely from an economic viewpoint – a married man and woman needs to produce at least two kids, so that in their retirement they will have replaced themselves with two people who will pay taxes to fund their parents’ cost to the economy. But in old age, a homosexual ‘couple’ has not produced anyone to replenish the economy. It’s fortunate, from an economic viewpoint therefore, that around 99% of people in our society are heterosexual.

If we take the economy out of the equation, and replace it with a value system or a belief in God, then a homosexual person is of equal value and is equally loved by God as a heterosexual person. However, God (or Mother Nature) does not bless a homosexual union in the same way as a heterosexual union – in fact quite the opposite. The heterosexual union, bonded by marriage, ensures the continuation of human beings. That’s why it is “the predominant form of family life in most cultures throughout history”.

DM, not all gays agree with Signorile. And I'm not entirely sure if Signorile holds the same views today as he did in 1994. Andrew Sullivan, Jonathan Rauch, Larry Kramer are a few of the American gay activists and writers who do not subscribe to the views you are putting. Rodney Croome, Damian Meyer and myself also don't believe that marriage is irrelevant. Which is why we are campaigning for same-sex marriage (we are members of Australian Marriage Equality). If we thought it irrelevant we certainly wouldn't belong to such an organisation.

Nobody, including myself, has argued that heterosexual family forms are the predominant forms throughout human history. I am arguing that homosexual forms also exist, have existed generation after generation, and should be treated equally. We also are taxpayers and, because of the GST, will be taxpayers until we die - even after we retire from paid work.

Finally, I sometimes wonder why I write these posts. People like yourself go off into tangents about what other gay people may or may not have said and make erroneous assumptions about what I think. If you want to argue with Signorile go off and do that. However, I hold my on views that can be read on this board if you care to look.

grace pettigrew, that was a rather racist remark, sneering at Bill Muhlenberg as "Herr Muhlenberg". So what if he has a German-sounding name? You also seem to be down on dead white male authors [no shortage of those!] and you also pour cold water on Bill's studentship. Perhaps you should do some study yourself, starting with good manners.

DavisJS on the subject of homosexuality, the fact is that it is an unnatural and unhealthy lifestyle. Male homosexuals [less than 2% of the adult male population] account for 85% of AIDS cases. This figure was quoted by the Gay Lobby in the Industrial Relations Commission in 1994, and also corresponds with Commonwealth Health Dept. statistics. Homosexuality is a health hazard and should not be encouraged in any way. Smoking is also a health hazard, but look at the difference in the way we discourage one and not the other.

Correction to my last post: I meant to say that heterosexual forms ARE the predominant forms in history (ie: I am agreeing with DM on this point).

David JS, you must agree with Signorile to a certain extent, since you are attempting to transform the notion of ‘family’ altogether, and fighting for same-sex marriage, just as he asked in the aforementioned quote.

On another point, when you say that ‘homosexual forms’ should be treated equally, by this I presume you mean homosexual unions. That being the case, a homosexual union cannot be treated as being equal to a heterosexual union, because it is not equal! A homosexual union is not productive. It does not, and never will, produce anything to ensure the sustainability of society.