I suppose it's one of the dilemmas of democracy. Heaven forbid the voting majority wants something which will adversely affect the minority...

You miss the point. The majority of Australians would be profoundly disinterested in this sort of agitated hate-mongering. Ideological/ moral grudges don't interest them, and a general "live and let live" attitude (usually) prevails, thank god. We'll see this at the WA ballot box.

I think this is a case of ignorance is bliss, but it is also offensive

God loves homosexuals and so do I.

God hates the sin that is homosexuality and so do I. Remember that homosexuals do not have a monopoly on sin.

God sent his son Jesus Christ by virgin birth, to live as a man without sin and die on the cross and be raised on the third day for the sins of the rest of us. Now that God has sent his own son to pay the price for our sinfulness ought we not honour him?

I like the movie "The Passion" for one thing. It emphasized the high price Jesus paid for my sins ("goody-goody that I am”) I am not perfect (though I strive to be). I think of sinning as being like spitting on Jesus' face while he was on the cross.

I rekon Mr Grieg is still a bit sore about being shown at the ballot box that he is badly out of touch with the majority of the Australian people.

Ahh, you see, MattByrne - that's where you're wrong. The most recent Westpoll in December 2004 on the issues surrounding gay and lesbian law reform showed that the MAJORITY of West Australians DO NOT SUPPORT a roll back.

It's absolutely ridiculous to REMOVE human rights that have been in place for over 3 years. The world hasn't caved in since they went through.

The Libs should just allow gay and lesbian people to get on with their lives - with the protection of the law - just like everyone else.

Have you actually read the policy statement? Doesn't seem to be too much in there that limits homosexuals rights anymore than anywhere else in Australia.

And as for Brian's assertion that the WA Lib's will "recriminalise homosexuality" I didn't see that mentioned anywhere in the statement. It's just spin doctoring and fear-mongering. No wonder the Democrats are an irrelevant, spent political force.

My name sake is quit delusional, superstition is a good starting point for a fairy story but not public policy. It’s quite sad even now in these enlightened times when the light goes out there still a ready supply of cockroaches scuttling from under the bed.

Bozzie fails to understand the issue here. Increasing the age of consent (for gay males only) *is* re-criminalisation.

Currently, 16 and 17 year old guys can consent to male-sex sex. It's legal. If the consent age is lifted to 18, these guys return to being deemed criminals. Fines and jail sentences will apply to consensual sex in private for all 16 and 17 year olds, and their partners. This law will not apply to straight couples or lesbians.

Prior to the law reforms of 2001 (when the WA gay consent age was 21), gay men were being arrested, prosecuted and in some cases jailed - under these anti-gay laws. The consent age for everyone else was 16.

Colin Barnett, in a clumsy radio interview last month, said that he, "didn't want the law to apply to two 17 year old guys for example." But when pressed, failed to say how that could happen with his policy as its written, failed to say what would happen to a 17 and 20 year old gay couple (for example), failed to say what the criminal penalty would be under his Government, and failed to say why he was targetting only gay guys with this dogs breakfast of legal confusion - while at the same time pleading he was, "not homophobic."

Kelpie
PERTH

Bozzie... it is YOU who hasn't read the Position Statement accurately. Lesbians and single women would no longer have access to IVF (they currently do), age of consent for men only would be increased to 18 (it's currently 16), thus re-criminilising them and opening the possibility that a 17 year old could be jailed, access to Family Court for gay/lesbian couples with children would be banned as it would for straight de facto couples (currently these families have access)...

Read it again, I suggest... and next time, engage brain before commenting.

ConcernedCitizen is only partially correct when claiming that a majority of Western Australians do not support rollback.

The relevant Westpoll results were:

Do you support a coalition plan to ban same-sex couples having adoption rights?
44% -- support ban
48% -- oppose ban

Do you support a coalition plan to raise the age of consent
for homosexual males?
38% -- support raising the age of consent to 18 years
54% -- support keeping age of consent at 16 years

Clearly there is no majority support or opposition for rollaback on adoption, and the majority support for maintaining the age of consent at 16 for all, is significant but not overwhelming.

As others have mentioned in these comments and elsewhere, the care factor is low. The WA election will not be won or lost on the issue of rollback.

With all this healthy discussion and articulate offering of 'position papers and policies and social re-invention.. let me show u where it will all lead to in a few years. "PROPHETIC STATEMENT COMING UP".....
welcome to "NAMBLA" (yes.. do a search) For those old enough like me, to have watched with sadness the politicization of the gay movement, and its subsequent impact on public policy, never for a moment suggesting that it was in fact advocating 'open slather moral relativism' which is in fact what they ARE advocating. But all along using politically effective slogans like EQUALITY FOR ALL etc blah blah. But now, we are starting to see references to the social icons, the psychological data (APA) and general 'fair go'ness, among ANOTHER group.. ie. Nambla. Now.. who can show me ANYthing which would make their goals LESS morally right than those of the gays ? I can sure show why BOTH are morally wrong, but then..its in that obscure book called the Bible, and that is a big no no.. sheesh.. 'wowsers, bible bashers, loonies.. pulpit pounders..not to mention they old standby, "hyporcrite++" and lets not forget all those bad badd baddddd priests. (4getting of course that such priestly action is condemned by Christ MORE than any other)
Well I for one would re-criminalize homosexual BEHAVIOR.. and would probably rarely if ever enforce it. But sure as I write this, I would send a message that its 'THIS' far and no further. If anyone doesnt like that, then why not go ALL the way as far as the next politicized lobby group will take us. Call me what u will, but that, is where I stand.

BOAZ_David - No one has ever compellingly dismissed the linkages between the development of gay lobby politics and NAMBLA in the US. Has anyone tried?

Collin
its helpful to see actual results like that. Now, I'm wondering if a 'small committed group' did some work to raise public awareness of where this might lead, another poll in 12 months or 2 yrs may show a different result.
As for the care factor, sure, most people fail to see how such things can 'effect them' and the old Aussie sense of 'fair go' prevails. But on issues like this, most people are about as aware of the long term social impact as they are about the possibility of a close election being won or lost on the basis of one ethnic group or religious group concentrating in one political seat and voting a certain way.
You can be sure of one thing.. that political reality is becoming 'quite the topic' of conversation among some circles, so.. in Melbourne, we have about 5 marginal seats in my area, all with large numbers of evangelicals in them, who will vote on principle.
Isn't democracy wonderful ? Well.. if we can't have theocracy.. democracy is the next best thing :) (but for the re-assurance of those still picking themselves up off the floor after that remark... no, I dont want a theocracy) And yes, I'll be one of them voting on principle. For anyone who doesnt like it.. change the sytem, dont whine about it. We have had laws and views 'imposed' on us as members of the community for a rather long time now and its becoming rather tiresome. So.. people are becoming more pasionate, more active, more involved, and are sensing the possibilities.
Lets see what happens in the next few elections on a federal and state level. And just like those who are quite happy for 'their' outcomes to prevail, I hope they can rejoice as much if 'ours' prevail.

NORM I have no idea actually. But given that NAMBLA by nature is a homosexual organization, I somehow sense that the 'lack' of linkages would be hard to show.

boaz-david, why does it bother you so much what other people do with their private parts? How does it 'hurt' you?

Rather strange that BOAZ_David would bring up NAMBLA since he and his like minded friends have been arguing on other threads that a group like this should be allowed to exist?

No if we raise ourselves out of religion driven dogma and look at the facts most men who commit sexual crimes on children don't live as homosexuals and don't identify themselves as such, there is no evidence to support what the rabid right wing christians are saying, But then again do they ever let facts get in the way of a good hate fest.

It's sad, but predictable, that homophobes such as _David BOAZ_ and _Norm5Kj_ would throw the issue of NAMBLA into the middle of an argument for equal rights and justice for lesbian and gay people.

This has been a long-term strategy of the anti-gay movement and the Religious Right generally.

NAMBLA is an appalling organistion, which in answer to Norm's question, has been repeatedly condemned by gay rights groups, and is refused permission to ever join the International Lesbian & Gay Rights Assoction (ILGA).

But of course it suits the anti-gay lobby to overlook this and to throw mud and scream "peadophiles!" everytime reasonable steps are taken to secure human rights and equality under the law for homosexual people.

It would be so very, very easy for any gay or lesbian person to point to the shocking levels of child sexual abuse that happens in families - mostly dads against daughters - and use that as an argument to condemn heterosexual people, to call for the crimilalisation of heterosexuality, or to justify unequal consent ages between heterosexual girls and heterosexual adult males. Easy, but very silly.

Equally, a quick search of the Internet will reveal countless porn sights aimed at heterosexual males, and which promote "underage girls", "barely legal whores" and "Lolita" sex sites, featuring thousands of very young, and mostly underage girls.

But no-one would be silly enough to use this plethora of teeny girlie porn sites as overwhelming evidence of heterosexual depravity, or argue the case of a strong and automatic link between straight men and peadophillia.

The NAMBLA smear by Mr Boaz and Norm, shows how selective people can be in their condemnation of sexual oriention. And it shows a wilfull blindness when it comes to pointing fingers at those who are most likely to hurt children.

Kelpie
PERT

Kenny
I was not advocating them at ALL..I was saying and will re-state it here, that in a society based on moral relativism u can expect them to advance their point, and u have as much 'right' to stop them as u have to stop the advancement of any issue, 'none' (in such a climate)
To speak about 'damage' to young lives is a fact not supported by section 47 of the crimes act 1958 (Vic and WA) (u better read it CLOSEly).
What I am saying, is that unless we have a social foundation based on revealed truth, its 'anything goes' ultimately if pressure groups push the boundaries hard enough. Get it now ?????

It goes without saying that those who are driving the gay agenda will attempt to distance themselves from Nambla (who are all homosexual men) and also condemn the likes of me. They go together. Even the condemnation in the post of Kelpie was a political statement "Homophobe" I remember when we didn't even know that word.. but boy we sure do now..not a bad tool. Its simple really.. "invent a word and use it in such a way that its meaning is clearly negative, and splash it on all who oppose you as much as possible."

Now we are hear of 'Christaphobes and Muslimaphobes'etc.

To refer to Nambla as 'paedophiles' is not really productive. It might have good short term 'impact' and shock value, but I prefer to evaluate it in terms of moral relativism in general, and show how their strategy is very similar to the early gay strategy. (i.e. persuasive) It might be some time before we hear the crys of "We love, We're here, and its all OK" or something, but that is the direction. Eventually they will decide that community hate against them has to be fought sacrificially. (sound familiar)

I have no apology to those who feel my position is either bigoted or unjustified, I've watched it all happen. I do emphasise though, that for those who are simply struggling with their sexuality, they have my compassion. But for those who are politically advancing this agenda, it is willful and deliberate and compassion on a personal level does not mean the lack of a passionate opposition to the behavior or agenda on a political,social and cultural level.

Welcome to democracy.

Kelpie
if that comment about 'those most likely to hurt children' was mean't to draw attention to priests or orphanage workers and staff.. I would not disagree if the stats point to it. I would just point also to the fact that Christ condemned such behavior and u can draw your own conclusions about what went wrong in the heads and hearts of those guilty of such things.

Kelpie ... one more thing
you mentioned the sexual abuse of fathers against daughters etc and claimed this could be a justification of criminalizing heterosexual behavior.. ALmost a good point. You neglected to mention that no father or group of fathers that I know of is politically organizing to promote such an agenda. In fact..what u DID show is that we are a very sick society which has drifted far far from God. The best thing would be a complete resocialisation of ourselves along lines more acceptable to Him. Now that should raise a few voices.

Concerned Citizen, Before you get all haughty, read what I said (there wasn't much there). I said there wasn't much there that limited homosexual rights anymore than anywhere else.
The age of homosexual consent in Qld is 18, Tasmania and Sth Aust. it's 17. WA wants to make it 18, not much different.
You mentioned lesbians access to IVF. They currently don't have it in WA, so nothing will change. You mentioned access to family court for gay & lesbian couples will be stopped. They can't access it now so once again no difference.

My main point was Brians big headline and second paragraph in his article. There's a big difference to making homosexuality illegal and raising the age of consent for homosexual sex to 18 for God's sake!

By the way I don't have a problem with any infertile woman, whether lesbian or not, married or not, having access to IVF. But let's face facts: lesbians want access to IVF because they don't want to get pregnant the old fashioned way by a repulsive male. Fair enough, but if they also refuse to use a turkey baster then tough luck.

Bozzie

You are absolutely INCORRECT! Lesbians and single straight women CAN and DO access IVF in WA right now - and it's legal. Also, these women MUST be proven to be MEDICALLY infertile before being allowed to access IVF and to do this, they usually try artificial insemination either at home or in a clinic for a period of 1 year without success - same as a heterosexual couple - if they haven't conceived within 1 year, they are usually deemed to have infertility issues and can then access IVF.

And lesbian and gay couples DO currently have access to the Family Court in WA for relationship breakdown/child custody issues.

I'm not getting "haughty", it simply angers me that you are spreading untruths.

To correct Bozzie, the homosexual age of consent in Qld is not 18.

In fact it is 16 for all, however, it is 18 for anal intercourse. But this applies to gay and straight couples alike, and thus is based on sexual behaviour and not on sexual orientation. (Australian research has shown that at least 12% of heterosexual couples engage in anal intercourse).

Consent ages in other states are: WA 16, VIC 16, ACT 16, NSW 16, TAS 17, SA 17.

Just out of interest, in most western and eastern european countries it's 14 (as with Cananda), but in the UK it is 16 (but 17 in Northern Ireland). In the USA it's mostly 16, or 18 in some southern states - but there is no distinction between gay/straight consent ages where higher consent age occurs.

Kelpie
PERTH

Bozzie

I should have asked you that now you are aware that lesbians currently have access to IVF and gay and lesbian couples currently have access to the Family Court in WA...

do you think it's wrong of the Liberal Party to REMOVE these rights?

According to Bozzie it's 'tough luck' if lesbians don't opt for 'the old fashioned way' or turkey baster. Surely. there's no sound reason lesbians shouldn't be able to access safe sperm which has been screened for HIV and other complications. Furthermore, most lesbian couples do not require complicated and expensive IVF treatments, just relatively simple and inexpensive artificial insemination.

On the age of consent issue: Technically, the age of consent for all sexual activity in in Qld is 16 years, except for anal sex which is outlawed until both participants (whether same sex or opposite) are 18. While wearing a veneer of equality, this anomoly in the law is clearly designed to show disapproval of gay people. In my book, the inequality alone is enough for this law to be reformed, but it also causes further complications in restricting young people's access to counselling and safe sex information. For example, the Qld Govt has just released a whizz-bang new website on safe sex information for school students, yet it fails to mention anal sex altogether. Surely this is like trying to educate people about malaria without mentioning mosquitoes. Get over it.

On Valentine's eve (February 13), gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people, their families and friends will stage a 'Love-In' protest against Qld's unequal age of consent at the Rose Garden in New Farm park from 1pm. The action is also supported by youth welfare groups, Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays and the Open Doors Youth Service, which specialises in helping at-risk LGBT youth

I find it interesting that the same people who supported Gallop's governments social reform program; which included committee's on this whole issue comprising entirely of homosexuals (who surprise, surprise had almost their entire list of wants legislated); are now the people jumping up and down scared that the majority of people may not agree with them... and heaven forbid those people's representatives gain power...
This is the same government that has been pushing a far more dangerous stance on drugs, sounds like it’s about time that they either get in touch with the majority of the populous, or get out of power.

Also nice to see a democrat saying something, I had this strange feeling there weren't any left anymore, but I can see why their jumping on the homosexual/ drug legalisation bandwagon, they really must be running out of ideas on how to try and stay more influential than family first...

I have no problem with any infertile woman accessing IVF. I haven't really thought about gay & lesbian access to the Family Court but I can't see why not if they were in a proper relationship for a number of years. There is no reason these things should be withdrawn and I'd be very surprised if the WA opposition did.

Well, Bozzie... that's exactly what they're going to do. Do you see now, why gay and lesbian people are a tad upset?

I'm appaled at the ignorance of some. Vincible ignorance I suspect.

What other people do with their private parts does affect me indirectly. The statistics show that, on average, gays have far worse mental and physical health than straights. This puts up my taxes and the downside spreads to more people by tolerating harmful behavours. So it is appropriate to discourage behaviour which is proven to be counterproductive, on average, to society.

Yes it is true that there are more straight individuals who abuse than there are gays who abuse. But this is misleading when we consider that the PROPORTION of gays who abuse is, according to statistics of both sexual and non-sexual violence, higher than the proportion of straights who abuse. This too affects me because abuse is detrimental to society and it raise my taxes and so I have a valid interest in laws to discourage counterprodcutive behaviour. If that's homophobia then homophobia is good and appropriate.

As I've documented elsewhere in other posts on this site, sex within marriage is proven, on average to be best for health, wealth, sexual enjoyment, and even safety from car accidents. And the stats show, on average, that religious marriage is better in these factors than non-religious marriage, that is in turn better than defacto marriage, which is better than divorce-remarrage which is better than same sex arrangements. So I would be remiss if I did not point out the such evidence so that people can make an informed decision and decide to not settle for less than the best.

Why have gays and lesbians this seige mentality?The rest of us couldn't give a rat's.Perhaps you lasiviate too much in your perceived oppression?

Brian Grieg has some nerve criticising the policies of the WA Liberals and those that object to the homosexual lifestyle. This is the man who, while a federal senator, organised his gay friends to package up bricks and send them to the reply paid address of the Australian Family Association making them incur thousands of dollars of postage. Thankfully AustPost waived the cost. Only a supremely pathetic human being would resort to such tortuous tactics.

In response to all those heterophobes who don't want the truth about the link between gay liefstyle and paedophilia to come out, there is lots and lots of evidence demonstrating this fact. This is not to say that all gays are paedophiles - just that their is a significant disproportionality. Here I will just cite the admissions and actions of homosexuals themselves:

The 1948 Kinsey survey found that 37% of gay men and 2% of lesbians admitted to sexual relations with under-17-year-olds, and 28% of gay men and 1% of lesbians admitted to sexual relations with under-16-year-olds while they themselves were aged 18 or older. In 1970 the Kinsey Institute interviewed 565 white gays in San Francisco: 25% of them admitted to having had sex with boys aged 16 or younger while they themselves were at least 21. In The Gay Report, 23% of the gays and 6% of the lesbians admitted to sexual interaction with youth less than 16 years of age. Abel et al reported similarly that men who molested girls outside their family had averaged 20 victims each; those who molested boys averaged 150 victims each.

As early as 1972, a coalition of homosexual groups has sought the repeal of age of consent laws, arguing that children as young as 8 years have a right to decide whether they enter into a sexual relationship with an adult. Groups like the North American Man Boy Love Association (NAMBLA), which regularly march in Gay Pride parades, have gone on record as wanting paedophilia legalised: “NAMBLA takes the view that sex is good, that homosexuality is good not only for adults, but for young people as well. We support all consensual sexual relationships regardless of age. As long as the relationship is mutually pleasurable and no one’s rights are violated, sex should be no one else’s business.”

The paedophile connection is not confined to North America. For example, a Dutch social psychologist and pro-paedophilia lecturer describes in an article, “Paedophilia and the Gay Movement” how influential paedophiles have been in the gay movement in the Netherlands. In France, 129 convicted gays (average age 34 years) said they had had sexual contact with a total of 11,007 boys (an average of 85 different boys per man).

Australian researcher Andrew Lansdown surveyed 30 issues of the Gay Community News, from 1980 to 1983. He found that 16 issues carried one or more articles or news stories on paedophilia. Other Australian homosexual magazines also contain similar amounts of coverage on paedophilia. At a 1982 conference in Canberra for Lesbians and Homosexual Men, a workshop leader said, “Pedophiles will be free when kids are free and not before” and urged that the effort to undermine public resistance to paedophilia be continued. Dennis Altman, a homosexual and Reader in Politics at La Trobe University, also seems to endorse the behaviour, describing pederasty (male paedophilia) as among the “safest” of stigmatized forms of gay sexuality, one that “often amounts to no more than acts of mutual masturbation.”

The International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA) has voted to expel NAMBLA from its membership, but it is a fair question to ask, however, why NAMBLA was granted membership in ILGA in the first place. Moreover, as jilted NAMBLA leaders were quick to point out, ILGA still contains dozens of member groups that support man/boy lovers or have paedophile or pederast subgroups.

And finally, Charles W. Socarides, clinical professor of psychiatry at Albert Einstein College of Medicine/Montefiore Medical Center in New York writes:
"And, when homosexuality takes on all the aspects of a political movement, it, too, becomes a war, the kind of war in which the first casualty is truth, and the spoils turn out to be our own children. An exaggeration? Well, what are we to think when militant homosexuals seek to lower the age of consensual sexual intercourse between homosexual men and young boys to the age of 14 (as they did in Hawaii in 1993) or 16 (as they tried to do in England in 1994)? In the Washington March for Gay Pride in 1993, they chanted, “We’re here. We’re queer. And we’re coming after your children.”"

Parents, guard your kids from these kind of sexual predators.

Well done WA Liberals! Great to see you guys are looking out for children.

References:
P. H. Gebhard and A. B. Johnson, The Kinsey Data: Marginal Tabulations of the 1938-1963 Interviews Conducted by the Institute for Sex Research (New York: Saunders, 1979).
A. P. Bell and M. S. Weinberg, Homosexualities: A study of the diversity among men and women (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1978).
K. Jay and A. Young, The Gay Report (New York: Summit, 1979).
G. G. Abel, “Self-reported sex crimes of nonincarcerated paraphiliacs” Journal of Interpersonal Violence 2 (1987) 3-25.
George Grant and Mark Horne, Legislating Immorality: The Homosexual Movement Comes Out of the Closet. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1993) 40, 42.
Roger Magnuson, Are Gay Rights Right? (Portland, Oregon: Multnomah Press, 1990) 14.
Judith Reisman and Edward Eichel, Kinsey, Sex and Fraud (Lafayette, Louisiana: Huntington House Books, 1990) 213.
T. O’Carroll, Paedophilia: the radical case (Boston: Alyson, 1982).
Andrew Lansdown, Blatant and Proud: Homosexuals on the Offensive (Cloverdale, Western Australia: Perceptive Publications, 1984) 100.
Dennis Altman, AIDS in the Mind of America (New York: Anchor Press/Doubleday, 1986) 144.
Lambda Report, Aug 1994, 12.

AK

ASLAN !!!
that is exactly what I"ve been saying.. almost with the 'i's dotted and the 't's crossed and I have not come across any of that information. WELL DONE .. and

GILLY.. your input is also appreciated ! IT IS a culture war, and its about time individuals stopped being afraid of the 'homophobe' stigma and started living by principle again .. basically 'got some balls'.
And people had the gaul to criticise me because I made the connection between Nambla and the gay movement.. and spoke long and hard about moral relativity !
I think truth is beginning to make its mark here at last.

God botherers, perhaps you should peruse the list of religious persons (priests, ministers, brothers, even nuns...) who have been charged and convicted of child molestation and abuse in Australia in the last half century. More than 500. And they're just the ones who were convicted. We all know how many get off because of lack of 'evidence' and the passage of time. Yet not one 'gay activist' has ever been charged or convicted of a similar crime. Who are the real perverts here?

As for your claims that 'homosexual' molestation of male children is out of proportion to that of female children, you might like to consider how much easier it is for male pillars of Christian society to get access to large numbers of boys than girls. If you read more widely and examined material that opposes as well as supports your opinions, you might come to more informed opinions. But no one should hold their breath.

Your excitement about setting the political agenda for the future is a tad premature. Family First managed about one per cent of the primary vote in the Federal Election. Nothing to get too preachy about. This isn't the US and the Bible Belt is more a garter.

Dear Chunkeeboi,

Thankyou very much for pointing out the "religious persons (priests, ministers, brothers, even nuns...) who have been charged and convicted of child molestation and abuse in Australia in the last half century." But one thing you forgot to mention is that nearly all of them were male and their victims were nearly always young boys. So thankyou for reinforcing my point. Unfortunately, the church has been used a convenient avenue for homosexual paedophiles to have easy access to kids. Scout Groups are another option - a male scout leader in SA was charged just yesterday with sexually assaulting and having sex with one of his scouts.

And BTW, it was the Family First Party in SA state parliament that proposed a bill to remove the statutory limitations which prevented victims of paedophilia taking criminal action against their molestors. The bill was passed unanimously.

AK

Oh and another thing Chunkeeboi,

You said: "If you read more widely and examined material that opposes as well as supports your opinions, you might come to more informed opinions." But I have merely cited the statements and actions of homosexuals themselves!

Who am I to tell homosexuals what they do and don't like? I'd prefer to let them speak for themselves. They have - and a disproportionate number of them have acknowledged that they like young boys. In the gay community, young boys are known as "chicken" and their predators are known as "chicken hawks".

AK

Kelpie wrote:

"The NAMBLA smear by Mr Boaz and Norm, shows how selective people can be in their condemnation of sexual oriention. And it shows a wilfull blindness when it comes to pointing fingers at those who are most likely to hurt children. "

I'd be more than happy to join you in condemning the foul and abhorrent abuse of women, girls and indeed boys in the pornography and child sex industries. In case you are worried, yes I am absolutely outraged by heterosexual abuses of which you are right to point out is a sad and contemptible reality of the human condition. Happy to smear straight crimes as well as any other abuses of human rights...

Rabid right wing Christian groups have stated putting source notes in their hate papers. Their rants and raves are full of bogus quotes and out of context quotes and down right lies. The data is usually rewritten up by some dim whit in the US and distributed around. The Baptist churches have become quite prolific. The junk science and out right lies told in this why goes a long way in identify the type of people these right wing churches are trying to attract. If any of these people actual read the from the actual sources a people in the field rather then foolish groups like this link below you may be able to have a informed debate rather then the closed minded drivel that is being produced by them.

http://www.fol.org.au/papers/homosexuality.html

Kenny.. this is a recurring theme.. "rabid".. 'right wing'... 'hate papers'.. those words are almost like a broken record. The gay lobby uses them in an assault of 'conservative evangelical' churches which is the correct name. What you are doing is just slogunering.. its also a part of that identifiable strategy to attempt to link 'foul and bad' ideas to the Christians who appose gay behavior.

But the interesting thing is.. I dont find 'HATE' in any of those publications listed on your source. I DO know where to find real heavy duty hate though... and its at 'GODHATESFAGGOTS.COM' by pastor Fred Phelps, who I guess u have heard of. Conservative evangelicals will always emhasise a compassionate approach, so WHY ???? do u group them in with the likes of Phelps ? (it apears) Phelps is kind of way right of the right wing of the republicans if by that you mean 'hating homosexuals'. He is a loony. CEs would all condemn his approach. So, I guess your deceptive tactic is just that.. a tactic rather than a serious attempt to engage on the issue.

Chunky.. did u swipe that litte line about the '500 perpetrators and no gay activist' from Robbie Swan of EROS ? I received an email from him with almost the same wording except that he used 'sex shop owner' instead of gay activist... maybe u are in ACT with him ? Or read the same 'standard' list of response material... hmmmmmmm

Percy I am appalled at the ignorance of some of us also.

The increased emotional and mental problems of homosexual people are more likely linked to the levels of discrimination against and dissaproval of them, than to their preference for sexual relationships with people of the same gender as themselves.

Get a Thesurus BOAZ_David there are many words for hate.

Well, I'm going to stir the flames up a little bit with a brand new opinion on the matter. It's my own one and it's an agenda that I'd like to push for the health of society, which should ultimately be governments role, rather than the control of society, which should be limited to megalomaniacs.

I'm going to start by expressing the view that the "traditional" family structure is missing something. There is something in my view of todays society that says too many kids are not being provided with the best opportunity to grow and develop as physically, emotionally, and sexually healthy. I'm not sure, maybe I've seen too many friends trying to cope with growing up missing something, maybe I've felt it a bit myself as well.

In my world view, human beings are not whole. We never represent the entire spectrum of what is possible, due to the fact that no matter how well we might do something one way, someone else is sure to do it a completely different way. In essence (and sorry to get a little mathematical) we are all fractions of a whole. Everyone is approximately a collection of half of what is possible for humans. And we are multiplying. Basic maths will tell you that a half multiplied by a half is a quarter. We are multiplying to create children that are much less than we are, and giving them so little material to work with.

Often in a family, a child and a parent will not get on well together, because they are too alike. I know I certainly argued with my father growing up, because we were to akin to each other. If however, each person finds their opposite half amongst their own gender, and adds together. We can see that a half plus a half comes to a whole. Two guys, in love with each other and together encompassing much more of the range of masculinity, and two gals, also in love with each other and encompassing the possible range of femininity.

Now what we have are two, well, for the sake of argument, complete wholes. There'd still be some holes of course, but the maths looks better with 1 rather than 0.934134. When we multiply 1 x 1, this time we will give birth to and raise our children as a whole. As almost a 1 to begin with, with all the opportunity to grow and learn trust and respect and how to be a caring, loving, responsible human being. Growing up with four walls around them to roof a loving household would have to be better than the two walled tent setup we currently settle for.

This doesn't just work for two gay couples together. It also works for two straight couples together. The partners need not be shared if that offends your religious sensibilities, however households with four loving, caring parents would be distinctly happier, more safe and secure and environment to raise children.

The nuclear family is an interesting concept, because if you look at the Hydrogen atom alone, it consists of 1 proton, and 1 electron flying about it, and it's very volatile. The far more common and stable form of Hydrogen is H2, 2 protons and 2 electrons. I'm not even going to start talking about Helium for fear of scaring everyone off, but please, think about it and post your considered comments and opinions.

Of course, traditional 2 parent families shouldn't be banned, no matter how volatile, but I think many friends could find this a much more satisfying and enjoyable way to raise a family, because it shouldn't always be a chore. All those close family friend "uncles" and "aunties" could actually be "mothers" and "fathers" in stronger families. This way children could grow up with the attention of four parents, allowing perhaps three to work and one to stay at home, and four to share the work of changing diapers and coping with teenagers. And any children who are too alike their father or mother, will have another loving, caring, father and mother on board who is the opposite, and often the easier to get along with.

I think/hope this could also lead to a large decline in domestic violence, since if an abusive father hits his children, there would another father figure there to stop the violence, rather than having to live in fear and pain. And hitting your own kids is one thing, but hitting someone elses kids is likely to get these bullies taught a lesson, with one out of four hopefully willing to report the abuse and break the cycle.

It's all about responsiblity, respect and balance. There is nothing "wrong" with homosexual relations and relationships. They are simply "different". I know certain parts of the bible condemn homosexuality, but I'm fairly certain it was Jesus himself who said "Love thy brother". In latin he actually says "Love thy sibling" but it was translated by arrogant male scribes of the time. All men are brothers, and all women are sisters. Love each other, as well. Do not hide your love for your friends away, but instead, let it flourish. Do not be ashamed of it, for love is never something to be ashamed of.

And please do not simply mindlessly believe all you are told by organised religion. Any truly humble pastor will tell you they don't know all the answers. You have to seek before you can find. Ask these questions of yourself. Maybe you'll find your own answers for today, rather than someone elses for yesterday. They're the only ones that are ever going to truly satisfy you. Looking might be scary, but I promise you'll live through it. Unless of course you don't. But that's inevitible some times. It happens to the best of us.

Faith, Peace and Respect
Chris Coman

Though I don't fully agree with you well said Chris. We tend to lead very insular lives these days and a return to a more extended family might help some of the problems we see, though it may create as many as it resolves.

"And please do not simply mindlessly believe all you are told by organised religion. Any truly humble pastor will tell you they don't know all the answers. You have to seek before you can find. Ask these questions of yourself. Maybe you'll find your own answers for today, rather than someone elses for yesterday. They're the only ones that are ever going to truly satisfy you. Looking might be scary, but I promise you'll live through it. Unless of course you don't. But that's inevitible some times. It happens to the best of us."

Hear, hear.
But there in lies the rub. People should be FREE to follow any religion they like - and with the(alleged) SEPARATION of church and state in this country, no one religion should prevail over any other; if it does, we no longer have a free democracy, but a government(whether left or right) with its own agenda, and we, mere pawns in their schemes.
Unfortunately, there are a great many pontificating twirps out there who require someone else's idea of morality to govern their lives because they lack the wherewithall to accomplish this themselves.
I certainly don't advocate under-aged sex, or sex between and adult and a minor, but the answers certainly don't lie in the bible(if it does for some, fine - your beliefs are your beliefs).
Morality isn't sourced from the bible, it is sourced from philosophy, Christian morality simply being one interpretation of what morality might be. The ultimate morality(in the context of human action)should be freedom of the individual, so long as that freedom doesn't impinge on the rights of another individual(rights here can only pertain to individual's legally recognized by law - minors are being under the legal umbrella of their parents/guardians) then the state has NO MORAL RIGHT to interfere; ESPECIALLY under the guise of religious morality.
To argue that all homosexuals are predatory isn't just narrow, its nauseatingly dogmatic.
But then I shouldn't be surprised. After all, it was the enlightened christian church that created the Inquisition.
Whilst the practices of the Inquisition have been left behind, obviously its prevailingling mindset remains in some of the more non-cosmopolitan backwaters of the planet.

Bottom line: one thing this forum proves is that its high time the citizens of this great nation got a constitutionally endorsed bill of rights.

Kenny..its not often that you and I AGREE..but this is one.
I'm all FOR extended families etc. But real ones, rather than fake ones. Blood is always thicker. It has some drawbacks but the sense of belonging and well being, support thru the hard times, etc etc.. all make it a wonderful approach.

I've only see fake families on the telly, are they the ones your talking about? Do you want to ban acting?

Breeding within blood is decidedly ill-advised, BOAZ. :)

Have a fine day,
Coman

You misread me Concerned Citizen, I was commenting on the ignorance of n0rm5kj not of Sen. Greig and the people of WA.

Religion is a PERSONAL thing that should not play any part in deciding the rights of our fellow citizens; remember, not every Ausralian is a Christian, and not all Christians believe that homosexuality should be illegal or deemed immoral. To put ones religious beliefs on a pedestal above the morals of other citizens is grossly pompous and ignorant.

If your beliefs mean you dont think gays should marry, fine, don't marry your mate, marry your girlfriend. But people shouldn't stop other people from marrying or having intercourse with the people they love. It won't hurt you, so what are you so worried about!?

COMAN.. i get the in-breeding bit :)
but in my case it was Braveheart and Longshanks families which apparently made me and my spouse is the grandaughter of a Bornean head hunter.. not much in-breeding here mate :)
And my neck aint red y'all.

MattByrne
Religion might be personal, but its also corporate, and social
It has as little right to influence the laws and standards as those other groups who, due to their BELIEFs politicize themselves and change things to suit them. Be they the gay lobby or the KKK

MattByrne,

Everyone has a worldview - including gays and atheists. There is no such thing as neutrality. If Christians don't push their worldview and morality, then gays, atheists, Muslims, etc etc will push their's. Don't pretend to separate out religion. Atheists are justs as religious (if not more so) than Christians.

AK

Hey Coman, wake up and smell the coffee!

All what you suggest has already been tried and was a dismal failure with many casualties.

Even gay sympathiser Siritos Sarantakos concluded after doing a carefully controlled study of children in three contexts (married parents, de facto parents and gay parents) concluded that children with married parents performed best in every area except one (which was more or less equal among the 3 categories) and that the children of gay parents performed the WORST in every area except one. See S. Sarantakos, “Children in Three Contexts” Children Australia 21/3 (1996).

AK

Coman
If you have a pair of gays in a house with a pair of lesbians and none of them are bisexual, where are the children going to come from?

I can see you've learned a bit of mathematics, but not understood that human multiplication by (heterosexual) reproduction is not the same as mathematical multiplication of fractions.

The chemistry is poor too. If it is possible to have an atom with 2 protons, 2 electrons and no neutrons it would be Helium. I did only first year Chemistry at University and could not be bothered digging out my now dated textbooks.

Jesus saying to love your brother did not mean to have sex with him (whether you are male or female). Both homosexuality and incest are condemned in the bible.

Sorry folks I do not have time to correct all your errors. Boaz seems to be setting you straight on some points. I agree with most of what he says, the rest is new information to me.

You all, remember homosexuals have just as much right to turn from their sins as heterosexuals. Jesus died for the sins of the whole world not just heterosexuals.

Ken: Did artificial insemination ever enter your mind? Or even a couple of bottles of red wine :P I mean, half the point of the queer movement is a liberation from gender defining sexuality. You get attracted to people, not just sexes. I'm sure if two gay men and two lesbian women were living together in a loving relationshp and wanted to have kids, someone would compromise (I mean, that's what love is about isn't it?) or indeed there are always medical ways. But lets ignore that and try and make it look like gay couples are worse or inferior to straight couples, because that'd be fun for maintaining our power to try and hide our insecurities now, wouldn't it.

Aslan stop getting your extracts from your rabid ring wing christian sites and actually read the actual paper.

Aslan. If christians are going to push an intolerant world view by not including gays in our society, then it is probably a good thing if they don't get an opportunity to impolement their beliefs. That goes for any belief system.

By the way, as an atheist (or cynical humanist if you will), the thought that one can declare atheism a religion is laughable, we don't have a 'good book' we don't congregate, we dont have special ceremonies we use scientific facts instead of blind faith to support our position (i.e. we just are, nothing more, nothing less).

But I will also say that it is a bit rich for you and your fellow commenters to use a religion that espouses tolerance as your excuse to be intolerant of your fellow citizens. Don't hide behind your religion, stand out in front and declare to us all that you are intolerant of the way other peoples live their lives, and we can then look at that and ignore you.

Asian, Gays and athiests and other minorities are not telling you that you need to adopt their ways or views. It is evangelical Christians who want to tell the rest of the world what to believe, how to live and what they can do with their own bodies.

Matt.. let me set u very straight on one issue.. 'Tolerance' in Christianity.. READ THE BOOK ... u will find that Jesus was very loving.. very inclusive (tax collectors, hookers, terrorists, fishermen) but he was NOT..NOT...NOT tolerant of sexual immorality or political/social injustice or sin in general. His acceptance as disciples of a tax collector who was scamming people did not suggest that he wished them to remain like that. He came to turn people from sin. John the baptist condemned it.. Jesus condemned it. When the woman who was busted in adultery was brought to him, he was compassionate, but not tolerant "Go.. and sin no more".
If I hear the shallow unthinking and uninformed 'Christianity espouses tolerance' again .. I'll call Azlan to 'discipline' you all :)

For those with a literal interpretation of the Bible:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's law. I
have learned a great deal from you and try to share that knowledge
with as many people as I can.

When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I
simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an
abomination. End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other
elements of God's Laws and how to follow them:

1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and
female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not to Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in
Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair
price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in
her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense. 4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates
a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbors.
They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus
35:2 clearly states that he should be put to death. Am I morally
obligated > to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

6. A friend of mine feels that, even though eating shellfish is an
abomination (Lev. 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there
"degrees" of abomination?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I
have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the
hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes
me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two
different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing
garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them (Lev. 24:10-16)? Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws (Lev. 20:14)?

I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy
considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can
help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Kenno all that you posted is worthy of discussion, it would probably be more fruitful if u just posted 'one' controversial bit at a time.

Lets look just at one for now. "Slavery" its a beauty... specially when my wifes grandparents used to keep slaves.. and had a great life relaxing (except of course when the were out slicing heads of and taking MORE slaves, which they could then sell)

But then.. an 'AWFUL' thing happened.. these 'culture wrecking missionaries' came along, and strange as it may seem, my wifes people, having heard about them..and the Jesus they were proclaiming, INVITED them to come and teach them about Christ. So they did, and this is the really annoying part.. it dawned on these new Christians that there was no place for a lot of things in their lives now, such as being drunk for more days of the year than they were sober, and SLAVERY. So, under the influence of the Gospel, they not only set the slaves free, but also gave them independance and property. I visited that area late last year, and with this kind of debate in mind, enquired about the relations between former slaves and former owners, and it turns out that they regard the former owners as FAMILY, not only this, they still look to them for assistance and guidance in matters of marraige etc. Yep.. all that 'literal' understanding sure messed up those people.

Bottom line, there is a lot more to the texts you quoted and one of those things is..shock horror..CONTEXT.. (perish the thought) and not just the actual verbal context, but the chronology of various events, not to mention the actual social cultural and political conditions of the day. I think you would be wise to read the context of each passage you posted, then do some background reading of an archeological/historical nature. Also, to give you a better picture of the general social situation of those days.. read the whole book of Ruth, (Old Testament) you will meet my namesake in there 'BOAZ' see what kind of person he was. How women were treated, there is 'much for you to learn'... before u can be a true atheist Jedi.

Instead of expending energy on verbal brawling with the Christian taliban and theocrats, gay and lesbian people should stop awhile and consider how much the world has changed in the past thirty years.
Savour the fact that year by year our human rights improve. Small setbacks occur but the path is ultimately forward and upward.
Savour the fact that the generation coming up behind X and Y is by and large more broadminded and tolerant and they actually KNOW gay and lesbian people (as opposed to critiquing them from a distance). A small percentage of them may be attracted to cults that encourage mass hysteria like "talking in tongues" but by and large even a lot of the self-confessed Christians among them have an open-minded view of the world they live in.
Savour the fact that there are gay and lesbian people in parliament who have the courage to be out and proud. Savour the fact that there are out and proud gay and lesbian people in every walk of life, despite the all the best efforts of the Christian taliban and theocrats.
Savour the fact that young gay and lesbian people are growing up in a world in which their families and friends are much more likely to support them and nurture them and assist them to lead happy, productive and fulfilling lives instead of being depressed and adopting destructive lifestyles.
Savour the fact that most Australians don't like god botherers telling them how to live and what to think.
Savour the fact that eventually we will have complete equality, even marriage if you must have it (though shouldn't we have our own traditions instead?).
Thirty years ago a lifetime as a gay man or lesbian in Australia seemed an awful prospect. That's certainly not the case to day. Savour. But always remember that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. Always keep your eye on those who seek to merge their religion with the state. Just look what they do in places like Afghanistan when they succeed.

chunky
the chrisitan taliban are FRED PHELPS...
not conservative evangelicals.

And savor this, there is a growing political and social awareness going on right now among CE's and it may well show up very much more in the next election. Victoria in 2006 and Federal whenever it happens. But then, it could go the other way.. we all have to watch.

I think that the day when a gay person went to a church in Sweden, and felt so offended at the Pastors message from Romans 1, and his passionate and colorful application, and managed to get him Jailed for a few months, was also the day when a world wide awareness by CE's awoke that were are a persecuted minority by a secular and gay promoting world. It was also the day when a lot of people turned from 'apathetic' to passionate.

Of course everyone should be vigilant. The majority of gay people I know consider that an appalling abuse of the law, as stupid as vilification legislation to stop people voicing ugly opinions. Or taking Sam Newman to court for making a (bigger) dickhead of himself. Freedom belongs to everyone.

mattbyrne, you are a breath of fresh air. Boaz_david and his ilk have become so tiresome as they continue to eyebash (earbash) with their beliefs. They should be aware that repetition is simply boring and not converting in any way. Condemnation of the beliefs of others while claiming that they are tolerant (well, as tolerant as Jesus), is simply hypocritical. A healthy society is one that is inclusive as well as tolerant. I have been observing many christians as stating that atheism is a religion, wadderloadda! As you stated, a religion requires ritual and it also demands faith rather than facts. I expect a major drubbing from Boaz after this - come on baby, I'm waitin' for ya.

RINGTAIL !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Happy now ? :)

I dont want to give you a drubbing mate.

God bless

Kenny, I have read the source - not that that changes anything...Children are still far worse off with gay parents.

mattByrne, Christians are not concerned with excluding gays from society. We believe they are made in God's image like everyone else and should the same protection under the law as everyone else. What Christians object to is the homosexual lifestyle and their militant social agenda. If we are intolerant of anything it is the militant homosexual lobby groups trying to redefine our law and education system in order to grant gays rights that they do not deserve (eg. access to IVF, foster care, adoption etc) and their attempts to indoctrinate our children through various school curricula and paint the gay lifestyle as a normal healthy option when in fact it leads to a lonely painful death at an early age either by AIDS, drug and alcohol abuse or by domestic violence (ie. one of multiple gay partners beats you up and kills you).

AK

Ringtail,

Atheism is a religion because you need an awful amount of faith to believe that there is no God. It is a totally irrational position. Why do you think the world's no. 1 atheist, Anthony Flew, gave up that position? He is now a deist. Still a long way from Christianity though but at least it is in the right direction.

And you do have a "good book" - 3 of them actually. Humanist Manifesto 1,2, and 2000. And these books (and many other atheists) acknowledge that atheism is indeed a religion.

AK

Ringtail,
If a lesbian couple get married then they might want to have children through IVF (paid for by the taz payer of course), which is why many feminists are so supportive of IVF. There are many moral, ethical, technical and health issues surrounding IVF technology, but I feel that feminists will try and silence debate on these issues like they have silenced debate on abortion.

There is another forum on IVF, and I have been trying to get women and feminists to give just one possible suggested solution to just one of the problems involving IVF. By giving a possible solution, they are getting “a voice”, and they would be doing something more constructive that having a whinge about men, or I think feminists and lesbians now refer to them as “penis persons”

So would you like to give just one possible suggested solution to just one of the problems involving IVF. These are some of the problems:-

- Donor parents (either men or women) can be quite unavailable to the child, because they live in a different country to where the child is born (and this is becoming more common.)
- Donor parents can have many children living in many countries, and they may not have much bonding with any of those children.
- Arranged meetings or contact between donor parents and the IVF child are not necessarily satisfactory for either party.
- Higher rates of birth defects for IVF children than with normal children, and they don't know why
- Lower rate of pregnancy as the mother gets older, requiring more intrusive and often traumatic IVF treatments.
- IVF industry is often driven by money, and can become very commercialised (not necessarily a moral industry)
- IVF is moving towards genetically modified children, or "made to order" children. Is this moral?

Could you please, please provide some possible solutions to these problems. If you don’t then I will start to fret, and get all upset, and believe that feminists are simply a bunch of people who like to vilify males, portray themselves as being victims, but can’t solve any problems.

ASLAN
thanx for the info about Anthony Flew I never even knew he existed till right now !
As pericles said.."I have to get out more" :)

The discussion and intro of him is fascinating. Guys.. u all ought to read it
http://theroadtoemmaus.org/RdLb/21PbAr/Apl/FlewTheist.htm

Take care

>Christians are not concerned with excluding gays from society.

Nonsense. Evangelical Christians have been the most vehement opponents of gays achieving equal rights before the law. They've opposed every step from basic decriminalisation to the limited parnership rights that exist at a state level now. Many even opposed gays and lesbians getting equal access to domestic violence laws. If this isn't excluding gays from society, what is?

>What Christians object to is the homosexual lifestyle and their militant social agenda.

What, prey tell, is 'THE homosexual lifestyle'? There is no single homosexual lifestyle. There are as many homosexual lifestyles as there are homosexuals. I'm celibate by choice and into gardening, classic movies and 60s music; many others live entirely ordinary lives in which their only point of 'difference' is the sex of those they love. The 'lifestyle' that conservative Christians insist we all 'really' live is the visible commercial gay scene centred around young people, nightclubs and sex. It's as ludicrous as taking the straight singles scene and associated sex venues and insisting it represents a singular 'straight' lifestyle.

>'militant social agenda'.

You really have read too many pamphlets. Gay people are too diverse to share a single 'agenda'. The 'militants' you speak of (in a cheap effort to associate us with terrorists and rogue unions) are usually irrelevant relics from the 70s and small bands of middle class arts students who'll get over Foucault as soon as they need to start earning a living. The only 'agenda' just about all of us agree on is the right to be treated equally under the law -- under all laws.

>If we are intolerant of anything it is the militant homosexual lobby groups trying to redefine our law ...

'Our' law? Isn't the law for everyone? It's not just YOUR law, it's ours too.

>in order to grant gays rights that they do not deserve (eg. access to IVF, foster care, adoption etc)

According to whom? Human rights are indivisible. They apply to everyone. As the great preacher Martin Luther King said: "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." A minority of gays and lesbians have been parenting for a long time now, and it's not going to stop. The studies that have emerged from reputable acedemic sources have shown these kids to turn out fine; to have suffered no ill-effects from being raised by a same-sex couple. Not surprisingly, studies that claim to show the opposite always seem to come from evangelical think tanks and are unavailable for peer reveiew. The latter stidies set out to make reality conform to scripture (or rather, a particularly narrow interpretation of scripture).

However, kids of same sex couples do suffer disadvantage because they're losing out on legal rights and are subject to uneccesary prejudice because conservative Christians insist on using the law to punish their parents.

>and their attempts to indoctrinate our children through various >school curricula and paint the gay lifestyle as a normal healthy >option

Here comes the standard conservative Christian attempt to conflate gays with paedophiles. To believe this 'recruitment' theory, you must also believe that your sexuality was a choice and that if it weren't for the intervention of Evangelical Christians wagging their fingers and censoring information you would have turned out fruity. Nonsense. The vast majority of people -- straight gay and bi alike -- report never having made a choice about their sexuality. People don't choose who they fall in live with; they just do.

Quite simply, what gays want from the education system is to ensure future generations don't have to go through the same crap we did.

>when in fact it leads to a lonely painful death at an early age either by AIDS, drug and alcohol abuse or by domestic violence (ie. one of multiple gay partners beats you up and kills you).

Homosexuality in itself doesn't make too many gay people succumb to drugs and alcohol or violent relationships. Just like the straight people who succumb to the same problems, poor self-esteem is most often at the root of the problem. In most cases the victims' harbour a delusional belief that they don't deserve to be loved. Surely you can understand many young gays would carry this very burden because of the homophobic attitudes in which they're brought up. Certainly, schools have no place exacerbating this problem. No kid should go through any school, no matter what its official dogma, without *also* being told the truth -- that many gay people can and do live happy and rewarding lives.

It's sadly ironic that it's the gay kids who come from conservative Christian homes and schools who suffer the most.

Forgive them, Father. They know not what they do.

Homo au Go-Go
It is likely that at least some lesbian couples will seek IVF treatment so as to have children.

Do you have any possible suggestions on solutions for the many moral, ethical, technical or health problems involving IVF (as mentioned previously), as these are very real problems.

Homo
we evangelicals have a view which will never accomodate the social or legal acceptance of homosexual behaviour. Its a simple fact. Read Romans 1 if u have any doubts. That is our guide.
We will only ever accept a homosexual who wishes to be helped out of that lifestyle. Homosexual behaviour is Sin. Rape is sin, Stealing is sin, Fraud is sin. Not all of those are illegal, but we regard them all as sin. We would not accept a person who is practicing fraud or is sexually molesting people in a habitual way. We would expect such individuals to repent. The love of Christ is there for each straying sheep.. He, is searching for the sheep. But when he finds it and it says "Get lost I'm quite happy here in THIS paddock" then the consequences are on the straying sheep. Dont blame or villify the Shepherd or his representatives.
For those who have convinced themselves that they 'ARE' this way I feel sorry for them. We all have urges which we can identify as 'wrong'. The difference is, we dont all carry them out, we seek to re-orient and reinforce other values that our consciences tell us are right. The very FACT of 'brain washing' as a reality of life, where downed pilots can be re-programmed to speak FOR their captors and even get to a point of believing that they are now 'right' is evidence if u need it that brain chemistry CAN be re-shuffled. But we can do it ourselves, by discipline, and yes, it DOES mean repressing some urges. Stiff cheddar.. we all have to do that.

One more thing.
If u guys can't keep morons like the deputy mayor of melbourne under verbal control, u can expect a "gloves are off" approach to any gay issue from CE's his comment 'lets make Melbourne the Gay capital' was beyond red rag to a bull.. I assure you.

Yes, Timkins.

Firstly, only a tiny minority of lesbian couples would require IVF. All that is needed for most to conceive is artificial insemination (AI), a much simpler and far cheaper proceedure than IVF. Referring to "lesbian IVF" is a convenient but incorrect shorthand that harbours an inherent bias.

Secondly, while I'm not convinced any donor need play any substantial role in a child's upbringing, I do agree children should have the right to know something of their familial and genetic history. I have no magic suggestions about how this is best achieved through public policy, but it's surely not beyond us.

I also believe children require close role models of both sexes, but this does not mean the donor must take on that role. Lesbian seperatists do exist but are a very small minority of women. Generally, lesbians live in the real world in all its diversity, not in hermeneutically-sealed same-sex societies. They are not 'man-haters'.

> IVF is moving towards genetically modified children, or "made to order" children. Is this moral?

Personally, I'm hesitant to artificially screw with the genetic codes of life -- which same sex parenting does not do. I certainly say 'no' to Frankenfoods, in which genes from foreign species are spliced together. Similarly, I hold grave reservations about the wisdom of creating "made to order" children. Here's one for the homophobes out there: If homosexuality is eventually proven to be caused by a combination of genes or by hormonal fluctuations in utero, would it be moral to tamper with those processes in order to artificially engineer an entirely heterosexual world?

Boaz,

We're the experts on this subject because we've lived it. So please don't lecture me on self-discipline.

What do Evangelical Christians bring to the debate? They bring the willful ignorance of those who are not allowed to think through issues on its merits. They must always stay within the bounds of a dogmatic, quasi-literal reading of texts written by an ancient people who understood very little about the world. I'm not saying the Bible is worthless, but it's plain ludicrous to hold up every word as 'eternal truth' as Evangelicals do.

It's you who seek to set yourself up as morality police and convert everyone to your chosen lifestyle and limited belief system.

Homo, you said "Evangelical Christians have been the most vehement opponents of gays achieving equal rights before the law."

Not true. We don't have a problem with gays having the same legal rights as everyone else, but we do have a problem with gay relationships/partnerships being given the recognition as marriage or de facto marriage relationships.

What is the homosexual lifestyle? Ummm...having sex (if you can call urinating on your "partner's" body or into his mouth, or licking his anus and inserting bits of your body into it, or "fisting" or "felchures" etc, sex) with (many) other different men.

No I haven't read too many pamphlets - I've read Marshall Kirk's and Hunter Madsen's book, "After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90's" which lays out the gays' aggressive and radical social agenda, and how they have used propaganda to paint a positive picture of homosexuality and deliberately co-opted language and the media to "jam" and villainise all those like myself who object to their program. Here's an interesting quote from them (p. 46): "Based on their personal experience, most straights probably would put the gay population at 1% or 2% of the general population. Yet…when straights are asked by pollsters for a formal estimate, the figure played back most often is the ‘10% gay’ statistic which our propagandists have been drilling into their heads for years."

Human rights? But who decides what are human rights and what are human wishes? There is actually no basis in history or in philosophy for human rights. In fact they really only make sense in a Christian worldview where God is the giver of human rights.

What gays want from the education system is for it to confuse and manipulate children so they are more vulnerable and easier to recruit to your lifestyle so there will always be plenty of "chicken" for the "chicken-hawks".

And yes it is sad that "gay kids who come from conservative Christian homes and schools who suffer the most." One of my sister-in-law's relatives was one such boy. He died of AIDS at the age of 33. Only his Christian family were at his side when his empty shell of a body gave up. Before he died, he acknowledged his rebellion and sin and recommitted his life to God. Another friend of mine who turned gay was not so lucky. I lost contact but discovered last year that he had died a few years ago of AIDS totally alone in a hospital in Canberra at age 28.

Homo, you can choose to live whatever way you want - but you can't choose the consequences...as many gays have subsequently found out - all too late.

AK

Ho Homo Au Go-Go,
I’m still sceptical about things such as gay marriage. In normal heterosexual marriage tody, it appears that couples mainly get married to have children, as marriage formalises the bond, and creates the more stable environment for raising children. That’s fine, although marriage is now very high risk even for hetrosexual couples.

But why do homosexual couples seek marriage, when there is no possibility for children other than adoption or IVF or AI, (and personally I don’t like IVF industry as I feel it is being driven mainly for profits). I think the gay community has to take a serious look at the IVF industry. The answers you have given would not solve too many problems regards IVF or AI if you study those problems closely.

Another problem would come with divorce of homosexual couples. From what I understand, divorce rates for gay marriage are generally higher than hetrosexual marriage. The present family law system is very biased against males in hetrosexual relationships at present (just ask any male who has been through it), and it is proving very difficult to get a fairer system. So what happens for gays. The gay comunity may have to develop it's own family law systems of sorting out divorce.

Overall I think that various gay lobby groups do have to take into consideration likely social affects or possible problems of such things as gay marriage, and begin to think of possible solutions to those problems. It cannot just leave those problems to the rest of society to sort out.

This is what happened to feminist organisations who wanted much more divorce. They got that widescale, but the social consequences have been devastating, both socially and economically.

Basically I think the gay community has to do some extra work on identifying possible problems, and have possible infrastructure ready to go with such things as gay marriage. The feminist movement didn't and it left behind a hell of a shambles. I think society cannot afford similar mistakes again.

I look forward to responding to your comments Timkins and Aslan. Alas, even the wicked must sleep, then this little sinner must work in the morn before dinner with a lovely lesbian couple in the evening. No doubt we'll sit around plotting the demise of Western civilisation after a suitably gluttonous dessert instead of watching The Bill and Parky on the Gay BC, which is usually the Saturday night highlight of my homosexual 'lifestyle'.

I think the discussion has drifted away from the original point (as I perceive it) which is not whether or not being gay is morally acceptable but whether or not a majority has a right to enforce their morallity on others.

Governments and laws are there to protect people. If no harm is being caused there is nothing to protect people from, so therefore it is clearly something that is not the business of anyone else.

If you don't like gays, surely the easiest option is not to associate with them? It is not as though they are coming and asking you to convert to Gay-dom. I am just saying how is it your business?

It is not a role of governments to tell us what to think nor to legislate to control what we do in our personal lives.

Timkins

47% of heterosexual marriages in Australia currently end in divorce. Many heterosexuals get married and choose not to have children, so why do they get married? Same reasons some gay and lesbian people want to get married... commit to the person you love in front of your friends and family, openly share an intention to stay together 'forever', and let's not forget the legal and financial privileges (and responsibilities) which come with being married. Also, there are religious gay and lesbian people who want to get married in an accepting Church. Why should they be denied their faith just because of their sexuality?

You are confusing AI with IVF. The vast majority of lesbians fall pregnant using AI with donor sperm, quite often in their own homes. In these situations, the donor is known to the child from conception and often has an ongoing role in the child's life. Only lesbians who are MEDICALLY infertile access IVF. To be proven medically infertile you have to have tried to fall pregnant for about 1 year. The number of lesbians accessing IVF treatment for infertility is minimal. For example, in Perth there have been 40 lesbian couples access IVF in the last 5 years. And the out of pocket expense each time is around $2,500. Where a heterosexual infertile couple can get a rebate through the Medicare Safety Net after they've spent $300 out of pocket, a lesbian couple must reach $1400 before they can claim a rebate (because they're not considered a couple Federally). So a lesbian couple pays more for their infertility treatment anyway. If there's anything you want to know about AI/IVF, I'm happy to respond.

"Another problem would come with divorce of homosexual couples. From what I understand, divorce rates for gay marriage are generally higher than hetrosexual marriage."

This is a particularly interesting comment because if gay marriage is illegal here, how do you come to the conclusion that their divorce rates are higher? They're not getting married in the first place

Timkins

I'm going to attempt to answer your earlier questions on IVF.

- Donor parents (either men or women) can be quite unavailable to the child, because they live in a different country to where the child is born (and this is becoming more common.)

In Australia, sperm cannot be imported from overseas, so this is an unlikely situation. Sperm donors in Australia will generally live in Australia.

- Donor parents can have many children living in many countries, and they may not have much bonding with any of those children.

See the above comment about the importation of sperm into or out of Australia. Unlikely that an Australian citizen would have a child in many countries because of the limitations of importing/exporting sperm.

- Arranged meetings or contact between donor parents and the IVF child are not necessarily satisfactory for either party.

No different to arranged meetings between 'absent' fathers or mothers of children born to heterosexual couples not accessing fertility treatment. On the flipside, these meetings can also be quite positive for all involved.

- Higher rates of birth defects for IVF children than with normal children, and they don't know why

Yes, there is a slightly higher rate of birth defects - some studies suggest the link is in relation to the age of the women accessing IVF for infertility treatment. It IS only slight, however. You want to ban IVF for all infertile people?

- Lower rate of pregnancy as the mother gets older, requiring more intrusive and often traumatic IVF treatments.

True, but it's not your trauma. An infertile woman/couple choose to undergo treatment and they access extensive counselling at the clinics to help cope with this very thing. It's not up to you or anyone else to dictate to an infertile woman/couple what treatment they receive or for how long.

- IVF industry is often driven by money, and can become very commercialised (not necessarily a moral industry)

Possibly, but there are also many clinics which are public - not so driven by the dollar.

- IVF is moving towards genetically modified children, or "made to order" children. Is this moral?

Please be more specific. Are you talking about pre-implantation genetic testing for hereditary disease, sex selection to avoid hereditary disease... or what?

There is another forum discussing IVF. Here the issue is that W.A. is discriminating against gays by back peddling on previous laws. IS this fair? Well discrimination is not fair and flys in the face of democracy. Anti gay laws will not make homosexuality go away - it occurs everywhere in the animal kingdom, of which we humans are a part. As for whether gays are good or bad parents, just like other human beings there are good homosexuals and bad homosexuals. I hope this is simple enough for the god bothering homophobes out there.

HOMO AGOGO

Aslan said it all, I dont think I need to repeat it to you.
The issues u raised from your assumptions are too broad to cover in s short post here, so I wont.

JCL your comment is typical of the gay lobby. Its a lot like the public/PR face of Islam "Ours is a religion of peace" which is patently not true. In the case of the gay lobby. We KNOW what the agenda is and while it might not be YOURS personally, there are others ..Deputy Mayor of Melbourne "Lets make Melb the gay capital of Australia".. do I really need to say anything about "Cultural Texture and Social change" ???? and how such a situation might effect our feeling of being Melbournians or Australians ? Sorry..but it should be abundantly clear from just one comment like that, that the agenda is NOT 'peacefully being left alone to follow our choices' its LETS MAKE THIS HUGE !!!
When the rubber meets the road there is only ONE rule for competing lifestyles and that is "Rule...or be ruled". So, that is where it has been placed by the gay lobby, and we will meet it at that level.
Nothing personal, but everything political and social :)

RINGTAIL
if u keep on persisting in coming down into my shower, and sleeping there, I'll have to put a wire mesh over the top to stop you !
(there is a Ringtail possum which comes down for a drink during dry weather.. gets in..but can't get out, I find it there surrounded by poo in the morning. Our shower is outside under a verandah.)

As for the issues.. I think we have exausted the topic. Only democratic forces will determine how we approach the issue.
It will boil down to one group feeling disenfranchized, no matter which way things go.

Boaz - agree topic is very much exhausted and much strayed from. Why the personal attack on my moniker, mate? Just coz you disagree with me?
The losers are the gay community who continue to be marginalised and villified.

Concerned Citizen,
The topic if IVF/AI could be discussed more fully in the other forum under “Political sperm donors”, where IVF/AI vs adoption can also be discussed. There has been information already posted on a number of areas, but because there are so few donors now in Australia, donors are being enticed to come to Australia from other countries, which means that the donor is un-available to the child. I have a close look at the IVF/AI industry, and I think that the longer this industry continues, the bigger the problems that are going to develop as I see it.

From what I have generally read of it, then gay marriage (where it has been legalised) has a higher divorce rate than heterosexual marriage. There could be many reasons for this, but you will notice that most governments couldn’t really care less about heterosexual marriages, and if you remove government rhetoric then many government programs in place to support heterosexual marriage are mostly minimal or token gesture stuff only.

This is what I have tried to indicate to Homo au Go-Go, is that if the gay community want such things as legalised gay marriage, it will have to provide the services, resources or infrastructure itself to support gay marriage. It cannot rely on the government, as the government provides almost nothing for heterosexual marriage (which is the majority of marriage). There are sections of government or sections of society that could even be regarded as anti-marriage or anti-nuclear family.

So just legalising homosexual marriage is not enough, as there has to be the infrastructure to make it work. If that infrastructure is not there, it will all end in tears for many gay people I'm sure. The situation for heterosexual marriage is bad enough with minimal support or concern by government, but I think it could be much worse for homosexual marriage, if the gay community does not provide its own infrastructure

RINGTAIL
I wasn't trying to attack ur monika.. I was trying to inject a bit of humor into our interaction. It just so happens that every time I see ur nick, it reminds me of that pesky (but lovable) possum :)

BOAZ_David is correct about democratic forces. And the reality is that the church is a far more significant body than the 1% or 2% of gays in the country.

If gays feel marginalised, it is their own doing. They are not just concerned with tolerance or equal opportunity - they want everyone to celebrate, applaud and even participate in their perversion. In doing so, they have awaken the sleeping giant - the Church! We are fed up with the gay agenda. If they want a war on social policy then they are going to get one. And they are massively outnumbered.

The Church was responsible for the marriage act ammendment bill which the ALP was initially not going to support until Jim Wallace from the ACL gave Nicola Roxon a lesson on democracy. In SA the church chucked out the vilification bill, had the pro-homosexual sex education program rewritten, and removed statutory limitations which stopped paedophiles who committed offences years ago from being prosecuted. And we are shortly going to have the Relationships Bill chucked.

And we have only just scratched the surface!

AK

Timkins

You brought up the AI/IVF issue on this forum - I was just responding.

In respect to this, however: "So just legalising homosexual marriage is not enough, as there has to be the infrastructure to make it work. If that infrastructure is not there, it will all end in tears for many gay people I'm sure. The situation for heterosexual marriage is bad enough with minimal support or concern by government, but I think it could be much worse for homosexual marriage, if the gay community does not provide its own infrastructure."

Why are you so concerned for gay and lesbian people who want to get married? And why should gays and lesbians have to supply their OWN infrastructure? Why don't you say heterosexuals should supply THEIR own infrastructure? Why would you just not say, the Government has to fix the problems? To not allow gay and lesbian people to marry because the Government hasn't yet got it right for heterosexuals is a very limited argument.

In any case, someone a few posts before this one hit the nail on the head. None of this has anything to do with the issue at hand - which is the Liberal Party's plan to roll back human rights in WA.

Everything else is irrelevant.

Aslan, you're a worry, you appear to dislike a lot of people, gays ARE discriminated against, if you don't believe me just pretend to the next straight male you meet that you're gay - see how they react - could be interesting. Betcha don't have the ermm...balls for that.

Boaz, me bonza mate, I am happy when you do attempt a bit of humour, guess that makes you my fave christian here and if I make you think of something warm and furry............all to the better.

Concerned Citizen,
"Why" is a good question. Are governments all that concerned for human rights, or for such things as marriage? Highly debateable.

Do we have a democratic society? Highly debatable.

So wherever possible, people are best NOT to rely too much on government.

Thanx Ringtail.... I try.

"In 1990, Ronald Reagan allowed the CIA to back the Contra Rebels in Nicaragua and overthrow the elected government of Daniel Ortega by military coup. The regime that followed recriminalised homosexuality."

Ronald Reagan wasn't president in 1990, although the CIA had been backing the rebels before that.

The elected government was not overthrown in 1990, there were elections and the leftist government of Ortega was defeated.

Ortega remained president of Nicaragua until 1991.

Get your facts right Brian - what else in you article is not accurate.

t.u.s.

Ringtail,

Everyone discriminates. Discrimination is a part of everyday life for every person. A person discriminates when choosing clothes or food, or which bank to use or who they get to cut their hair etc etc. Gays and others have hijacked this word and made it sound negative. ie. discrimination = bad, tolerance (which is redefined to mean acceptance) = good.

I don't hate homosexuals at all - I just dislike what they do. If anything, I feel sorry for them. They endure a great deal of physical pain from their activities, and mental torment from their inner conflicts, and then die horrible deaths, usually alone, 30-40 years before their time.

AK

jcl
They may not all be trying to convert me to "gaydom" but a few have attempted to do so. As Boaz_David points out some of us know right from wrong.

I am getting older (I am older than the member for Solomon) and uglier besides I no longer drive taxis (where I used to meet such people). So the attempts to lead me into this sin have virtually stopped.

Homo
I hope you got a good night's sleep.

If homosexuality were genetic would it not have been "bred" out by the homosexuals not having any children long before the advent of Artificial Insemination? I say it would have.

Aslan
Did anybody in the ALP support (vote for) the Marriage Amendment Bill 2004? I think not they were not in the senate for the “crucial” vote.

Concerned Citizen
“Human rights” does not include the right of a small minority to over ride the majority.

“Human rights” does not mean the right to continue to molest children.

Ringtail
Most heterosexuals would not be able to do a convincing impersonation of a homosexual. As one gay told me “Heterosexuality oozes from every pore of your body.” Besides when gays have expressed interest in me I have simply informed them that I was not interested, rather than the implied unprintable actions you refer to.

David Boaz - Melbourne wants to cash in on a bunch of guys overly involved in fashion accessories and going out to impress each other and therefore spending large amounts of cash. It is only about money and not about morals at all, which is a bad thing in itself, but pretty much inevitable. Obviously there is a % with an agenda but you have no reason to think it is the majority.

I am not part of the "Gay Lobby" being straight and disinterested in what other people do with their lives (unless I am bored at work and then comment on forums like this! - I know a hypocritical comment) but the government intervention in what I see as a personal decision does bother me. While this issue doesn't affect me, I don't want the governments to be making decisions on other issues which DO affect me.

Ken - As far as them not converting you, I have had guys I am not interested in hit on me, and women too, and after politely saying I am not interested they go away. I have never perceived this as an attempt to change my lifestyle in any way. Of course, I am getting older and uglier too, so it happens less for me too *grin*.

Some ramdom responses:

>I hope you got a good night's sleep.

Thanks Ken. I did.

>If homosexuality were genetic would it not have been "bred" out by >the homosexuals not having any children long before the advent of >Artificial Insemination?

No. The current dominant theory suggests some combinations of genes may be responsible, in which case they are passed on through the ages by heterosexual 'carriers'. Why would God/evolution do this? I'd suggest it is because there are benefits to human societies in having a permanent minority of citizens who don't breed (Interestingly, the opposite is probably true for the nomadic desert-dwelling Jews who wrote Leviticus. To them, non-breeders would have caused excess strain on the tribe's scarce resources).

>“Human rights” does not include the right of a small minority to over ride the majority.

On the contrary: human rights exist to prevent unjust abuses of power, regardless of whether that power is exercised by a 'democratic' majority, a totalitarian minority or theocratic sect. By your reasoning above, the Nazi persecution of Jews, socialists, homos, gypsies etc was not a violation of their human rights because the Nazis enjoyed the support of the majority of Germans at the time.

>“Human rights” does not mean the right to continue to molest children.

Well, duh! Of course not. That would be a gross abuse of power over a minority (children). This continual attempt to conflate paedophilia with homosexuality is a gross defamation. They are two separate phenomena. I recall reading that to most paedophiles the sex of the child is irrelevant. Besides, the vast majority of child sexual abuse happens within families, with by far the most common pattern being a father or stepfather molesting a female child. These molestations rarely make the news.

>They [gays] endure a great deal of physical pain from their activities, and >mental torment from their inner conflicts, and then die horrible >deaths, usually alone, 30-40 years before their time.

Here comes Aslan with the pamphlets again. This is all straight out of Gay-bashing 101. 'Inner conflicts': Religious homophobes should at least have the balls to take responsibility for the torment they cause to young gay people by pepetuating homophobia. 'Usually die alone': We do have families and friends, Aslan. Most of us have our natural families as well as the families we create through romance, bonds of friendship and community. Consequently, few of us 'die alone'. "30-40 years before their time": By practising safe sex, HIV negative gay men in Western countries can enjoy the same life expectancy as anyone else. Besides, this 'statistic' has long been revealed as fradulent. It was based on the obituaries appearing in gay newspapers at the height of the AIDS epidemic -- hardly a sound sample. Furthermore, the flimsy fig leaf of 'loving the sinner but hating the sin' doesn't quite cover the rampant glee with which you describe our supposedly terrible lives. The fact is, Biblical literalists have a vested interest in ensuring gays continue to get the pointy end of the pineapple. They are the cause of the problem, not the solution.

>The Church was responsible for the marriage act ammendment bill >which the ALP was initially not going to support until Jim Wallace >from the ACL gave Nicola Roxon a lesson on democracy.

Get your facts right. The ALP was *never* going to vote against the marriage act amendment bill. It announced its decision to support the bill almost as soon as it was unveiled. And for months prior, Latham had been making it clear in interviews that while Labor was committed to reviewing discriminatory legislation at the federal level, it would *not* support same sex marriage. As a sop to its pro-gay supporters, Labor did commit to send the bill to a Senate inquiry so that Australian citizens could at least register their opinions on the issue. But when faced with a mob of evangelicals at an ACL rally, Roxon crumbled and announced Labor would just pass the bill without waiting for the results of that inquiry. Essentially, the ACL had blackmailed Labor with the threat it would run a campaign during the election claiming Labor had failed to 'protect' marriage from the homos.

>When the rubber meets the road there is only ONE rule for competing >lifestyles and that is "Rule...or be ruled".

Gee, and I thought we could all learn to get along.

>Basically I think the gay community has to do some extra work on >identifying possible problems, and have possible infrastructure >ready to go with such things as gay marriage.

No. The onus is on the opponants of same-sex marriage to identify the problems *they* predict it will bring. So far they've failed utterly to do so. In fact, the level of public debate on the issue in Australia has been remarkably shallow. Never mind, the issue isone of basic equality before the law and will not go away. I predict we'll have gay marriage in Australia within 20 years. Realist conservatives are beginning to understand that same-sex marriage will be beneficial not only for the gay community but also for society at large. Bring it on.

>The feminist movement >didn't and it left behind a hell of a shambles. I think society >cannot afford similar mistakes again

You think feminism left a shambles. I don't agree. Feminism liberated women from a stifling domestic subservience that allowed them few life choices (and next to no control over their fertility). As in the heady days of any liberation movement there were excesses, but on balance, feminism has been a positive and empowering force for both women AND the men who have accepted its importance and successfully adapted to it.

Like most people I'd rather the divorce rate was lower but I'll defend the availability of no-fault divorce to the end. There's no benefit to society for spouses to stay together after love has soured into bitter resentment. We've seen the damage it does to teh couples themselves and to any children unlucky enough to have live in such a storm. People are people. We're imperfect beasts. We make mistakes. No one should have to stay shackled to an old mistake that now brings only misery.

Unfortunately, people today have lost touch with the reasons behind the social liberation movements of the 50s, 60s and 70s. They have no direct experience of the ugly abuses of power inflicted by conservative theologians in those pre-liberation times: the widespread censorship, the figger-wagging moralism, the stifling conformity, the unhappy marriages, the backyard abortionists, the fags getting thrown in jail. But if the Religious Right gets the power it craves you can bet humanity won't suffer through too many years of repression before we'll see another 60s-like wave of liberation. We know too much to tolerate being treated like sheep.

Hi Homo Au Go Go,
I think most people are concerned with “excessive” homosexuality in the community. At present it appears that Cairns in Nth Qld is actually the homosexual capital of Australia, or at least the homosexual holiday capital.

I personally know of a number of families with children that have moved from Cairns and moved to the town I live in. They moved away because of the concentration of gays in the area, and the belief that this was not healthy for their children to live in an environment where there was such a concentration of gays, and children "were" being approached quite often by gays in Cairns.

Personally I am very concerned by propaganda and brainwashing by various groups in society. Feminists are one such group that makes heavy use of brainwashing of the young, with the end result is that many people now overlook the very dark and negative side of feminism. There are now universities in the US that have incorporated an Academic Bill of Rights into their curriculums. This was because the curriculums had become so filled with feminism or liberalised material that students were hardly learning anything that they could use in employment. The universities were simply brainwashing machines of the young by feminists and liberalists.

Similar can happen with homosexuality, whereby gay people will try and impart their homosexuality onto others who are not homosexual. They will try and do this through brainwashing or by trying to make homosexuality look overly attractive in some way. This is occurring in the gay bars and gay meeting places in Cairns.

This is a problem for the gay community to solve. The heterosexual community will simply solve it by shutting down the gay bars, but then the gay community will complain that they are being persecuted and unjustly treated. So to avoid having to complain about persecution, the gay community has to show better self-regulation.

Unfortunately like feminism, I see no great signs of self-regulation within the gay community at present.

Homo Au Go Go,
One other detail, by shutting down all the gay bars and meeting places in towns like Cairns, the heterosexual community will also stop a major part of the drug taking and sexual promiscuity that is taking place in those places also.

Would this be a good thing?

I think so.

Hi Timkins,

>Similar can happen with homosexuality, whereby gay people will try >and impart their homosexuality onto others who are not homosexual. >They will try and do this through brainwashing or by trying to make >homosexuality look overly attractive in some way. This is occurring >in the gay bars and gay meeting places in Cairns.

You just don't get it, do you? We don't need to 'recruit'. There are plenty of us and we are everywhere. When gay guys do make advances on straight ones it's usually because they've not yet made social connections to other gays or they've misread someone's 'signals'. A simple 'no' will suffice.

I do pity those poor frightened souls who might have fled from Cairns fearing the lavender menace. They could have learned so much. Never mind, they'll probably be happier moving to a smaller, more homogenised town and hanging out with the local KKK.

There used to be an old joke that summed things up pretty neatly: "I've go no problem with legalising homosexuality, so long as they don't try to make it compulsory".

Relax, no-one's about to make it compulsory. How could we? Remember, we're only 1 or 2 percent of the population according to the evangelists. Besides, who would want unimaginative str8 boys gatecrashing their orgy? ;)

Hi Go Go,

For many years I also lived near Airlie Beach, (another holiday destination) and saw the changes that took place in that community over time. Basically some gays moved into the area and set up bars, restaurants, resorts etc.

These places were more liberalised (as you might say), and other bars, restaurants etc began to copy. Eventually much has gotten out of control, with drug taking and sexual promiscuity quite rampant. Sex frequently takes place on the beach, in the pools etc. Locals in the area now avoid the place, and they do not belong to the KKK.

Similar I have heard that Hollywood is now filled with gay people, where straights musty abide by the rules of the gays to have any success in Hollywood, but one can hardly regard most Hollywood movies or such things as MTV as being of great cultural value.

In this post-modern world, it only takes a small group in charge of mass media or in charge of entertainment, to create an unhealthy or over-liberalised environment.

...and for all those reasons, however accurate they may or may not be (Tim) u can see why I take a biblical position on the issue. I repeat.. only 1 rule. There will always be the spectrum of moderate/extreme and the extreme will always drive the agenda. So, I continue to endure the struggle but the difference these days is, we are actually realizing that there is a culture war on, and becoming more politically and socially active.
If agogo rejects the love of the sinner but not the sin, then its on his own head. As I said, its the 'willfulness' of sin which condemns a man, from his own mouth.
Homosexual behavior is sin. Full stop. Its just one of MANY sinful acts, which we all commit because we are all sinful. The difference though is that most people who commit adultery or petty theft don't try to change the social value system over it.

Hi Boaz,
It is accurate enough. Airlie Beach is known as “Party Town”. Locals in the surrounding area mainly go there if they have some spare cash, and want to get drunk, score some drugs and maybe find some sex.

How much of Hollywood is like that, and how much does Hollywood type culture now influence our culture, and should it become even more liberalised or accepted.

Homo au Go-Go accuses me of citing "pamplets". Actually, my info comes from homosexual researchers themselves and other professional clinicians. Militant homosexual heterophobes try to cover all this up but there own published research and surveys condemn them.

Inner conflicts:
Up until 1973, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) listed homosexuality as a psychiatric disorder in their Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Psychiatric Disorders. Their position did not change due to some original and significant research resulting in the discovery of new and compelling evidence, but by militant action by gay activists, including disruption, intimidation and threats of violence at APA meetings and conferences.

Ronald Bayer, in a work sympathetic toward homosexuality and the gay rights movement, recounts:
"Using forged credentials, gay activists gained access to the exhibit area and, coming across a display marketing aversive conditioning techniques for the treatment of homosexuals, demanded its removal. Threats were made against the exhibitor, who was told that unless his booth was dismantled, it would be torn down. After frantic behind-the-scenes consultations, and in an effort to avoid violence, the convention leadership agreed to have the booth removed." These tactics continued in the same manner at the APA’s 1972 national meeting. It was against this backdrop that the association’s trustees finally made its controversial 1973 decision. When a referendum on this was sent out to all 25,000 APA members, only a quarter of them returned their ballots. The final tally was 58% favouring the removal of homosexuality from their list of disorders. That some 3600 votes determined the policy of a professional society of some 25,000 members is no proof of general acceptance and scientific consensus. Indeed, in 1977 ten thousand members of the APA were polled at random, asking them their opinion on the 1973 decision and in an article entitled “Sick Again?” Time magazine summarized the results of the poll: “Of those answering, 69% said they believed ‘homosexuality is usually a pathological adaptation, as opposed to a normal variation,’ 18% disagreed and 13% were uncertain. Similarly, sizable majorities said that homosexuals are generally less happy than heterosexuals (73%) and less capable of mature, loving relationships (60%). A total of 70% said that homosexuals’ problems have more to do with their own inner conflicts than with stigmatization by society at large.”

Early death:
Homo is incorrect in saying that "this 'statistic' has long been revealed as fradulent." These authors examined 6,737 obituaries/death notices from eighteen U.S. homosexual journals over a period of thirteen years and compared them to obituaries from two conventional newspapers. They took into account the AIDS epidemic and distinguised between AIDS related death and other causes. Their results were published in a peer-reviewed academic journal (Omega: Journal of Death and Dying 29/3 (1994) 249-72). They conclude: "The obituaries from the non-homosexual newspapers were similar to U.S. averages for longevity: the median age of death of married men was seventy-five, 80 percent died old (65 or older); for unmarried men it was fifty-seven, 32 percent died old; for married women it was seventy-nine, 85 percent died old; for unmarried women it was seventy-one, 60 percent died old. For the 6,574 homosexual deaths, the median age of death if AIDS was the cause was thirty-nine irrespective of whether or not the individual had a Long Time Sexual Partner (LTSP), 1 percent died old. For those 829 who died of non-AIDS causes the median age of death was forty-two (41 for those 315 with a LTSP and 43 for those 514 without) and less than 9 percent died old. Homosexuals more frequently met a violent end from accidental death, traffic death, suicide, and murder than men in general. The 163 lesbians registered a median age of death of forty-four (20% died old) and exhibited high rates of violent death and cancer as compared to women in general. Old homosexuals appear to have been proportionately less numerous than their non-homosexual counterparts in the scientific literature from 1858 to 1993. The pattern of early death evident in the homosexual obituaries is consistent with the pattern exhibited in the published surveys of homosexuals and intravenous drug abusers. Homosexuals may have experienced a short lifespan for the last 140 years; AIDS has apparently reduced it about 10 percent."

In addition, homosexuals are more likely to commit suicide. This fact is also well attested in the scientific literature. See Judith M. Saunders and S. M. Valente, “Suicide risk among gay men and lesbians: A review” Death Studies 11/1 (1987) 1-23; Stephen G. Schneider and Shelley E. Taylor, “Factors influencing suicide intent in gay and bisexual suicide ideators: Differing models for men with and without human immunodeficiency virus” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 61/5 (1991) 776-788.

ALP support for gay marriage:
Actually, you are the one who needs to get the facts right. Yes, the ALP initially said they would not support gay marriage. But when the bill was put up, they objected to the anti gay-adoption provision and it was on this basis that they agreed to send it to the Senate committee. However, when the govt offered to split the bill into 2 bills - one for marriage and one for adoption - the ALP refused to support the marriage only bill. Moreover, the date set for the Senate committee to report back was rediculously too far in the future such that it was never going to report back before the election. The ALP's plan was always to stall and then mothball the whole thing if they won the election.

AK

Homo argues: "The onus is on the opponants of same-sex marriage to identify the problems *they* predict it will bring."

Historical studies show that any departure from traditional marriage will lead to the complete breakdown of the society.

Giambattista Vico, after completing an exhaustive study of ancient history, concluded in 1725 that marriage between a man and a woman is an essential characteristic of civilization. Without strong social norms that encourage a man to direct his sexual attentions to a single woman and thereafter care for their mutual offspring, Vico concluded that chaos ensued. Marriage, he wrote, was the “seed-plot” of society. See Vico, Giambattista, The New Science, 3rd Edition, trans. by Max Harold Fisch and Thomas Goddard Bergin.

British anthropologist J. D. Unwin reached the same conclusion some 200 years later. In his 1934 book, Sex and Culture, Unwin chronicled the historical decline of 86 different cultures. His exhaustive survey revealed that “strict marital monogamy” was central to social energy and growth. Indeed, no society flourished for more than three generations without it. Unwin stated it this way: "In human records there is no instance of a society retaining its energy after a complete new generation has inherited a tradition which does not insist on prenuptial and postnuptial continence."

Unwin tried to prove that marriage was an irrelevant and even harmful cultural institution. He was forced by the evidence to conclude that only marriage with fidelity, what he called absolute monogamy, would lead to the cultural prosperity of a society. Anything else, such as “domestic partnerships,” would degrade society.

In an address to the Medical Section of the British Psychological Society in 1935, entitled “Sexual Regulations and Cultural Behavior,” he stated:
“The evidence was such as to demand a complete revision of my personal philosophy; for the relationship between the factors seemed to be so close, that, if we know what sexual regulations a society has adopted, we can prophesy accurately the pattern of its cultural behavior... (p.5).
“Now it is an extraordinary fact that in the past sexual opportunity has only been reduced to a minimum by the fortuitous adoption of an institution I call absolute monogamy. This type of marriage has been adopted by different societies, in different places, and at different times. Thousands of years and thousands of miles separate the events; and there is no apparent connection between them. In human records, there is no case of an absolutely monogamous society failing to display great [cultural] energy. I do not know of a case on which great energy has been displayed by a society that has not been absolutely monogamous…(pp.31-32).
“If, during or just after a period of [cultural] expansion, a society modifies its sexual regulations, and a new generation is born into a less rigorous [monogamous] tradition, its energy decreases... If it comes into contact with a more vigorous society, it is deprived of its sovereignty, and possibly conquered in its turn (p.21).
“It seems to follow that we can make a society behave in any manner we like if we are permitted to give it such sexual regulations as will produce the behavior we desire. The results should begin to emerge in the third generation" ( p.45).

AK

Asian,

Regards the gay way of life. Just entering “Gay + tv” into Google gives 13,600,00 results world wide, and 213,00 for Australia alone. This is rather strange for a group that apparently comprises only 1-2 % of society.

If TV programs such as "Queer as Folk" do accurately depict the gay life style, (IE a life style involving regular drug taking and promiscuous sex often between complete strangers), then is this life style something to be encouraged and advertised to others. If the gay community do not think it is an accurate portrayal of their life style, then the gay community did not seem to have done much about having programs such as Queer as Folk taken off TV.

I see the hate speech is still fueling itself. Timmy you really should get out more. As for your parroting of the uninformed F of L you should look to more informed studies that indicate the one third of men have had some homosexual event in their lives. Now there is at least three members of the right wing Christian’s on the posts here so chance are one of you has had a encounter. If you guys are going to post references to papers could you at least read them! Aslan citing Vico is a fool hardy act of a desperate man as for anthropologist J. D. Unwin well he is often used as a source for the christian right. What a joke He work was not and is not something wich the rest of his field would subscribe to in fact most described hes work as usless.

Kenny,
Do you think TV programs such as Queer as Folk make for good TV veiwing?

Do you think regular drug taking and promiscuous sex makes for a sustainable society.

NB. I have no direct affiliation with any religion, political party etc. Also been in over 20 different countries and have done everything from sailing yachts to running a small farm.

Queer has as much merit as home and away if it offends you stop watching it. We have legal and illegal drugs consumed in vast amounts each day. The basis on whether one is legal or not is based on any rational thought. Why is alcohol legal and LSD not, ones a poison with serious side effects and one is not.

Kenny,
The following is an example of what happens in a highly liberalised or “anything goes” society, where there are minimal restrictions.

It is from a study undertaken into MTV at … http://cbs4.com/newsentertainment/entertainment_story_033202604.html

“ Approaching the first anniversary of Janet Jackson's famed wardrobe malfunction, a study released Tuesday criticized MTV for the "incessant sleaze" of steamy programming aimed at young people.

During one week last March, the watchdog Parents Television Council said it counted 3,056 flashes of nudity or sexual situations and 2,881 verbal references to sex.

MTV has clearly chosen to cater to the lowest common denominator, to offer the cheapest form of programming to entice young boys ... dangling forbidden fruit before their eyes," said Brent Bozell, PTC president and conservative activist.”

When there are no restrictions or boundaries, society tends to fail or go downhill. “That” is what I do not like about the gay community, it is has almost no self-regulation, and regular drug taking and promiscuous sex seem to feature heavily in the gay life style

Kenny,

Your response is typical of gay activists who are confronted with the damning evidence of the implications of their chosen lifestyle. Instead of serious debate you resort to ad hominem and cavalier dismissal. These are tell tail signs of having no response and no defence.

1. Just because people object to the homosexual lifestyle (and for very good reasons) doesn't mean their comments are hate speech.
2. Even if your stat about homosexual events in a man's life is correct (and I very much doubt it - sounds like Kinsey's flawed "research" to me - see Reissman), what does that have to do with anything? We are talking about men who adopt a gay lifestyle and push the gay social agenda, not men who once flirted with another man.
3. It appears you dismiss Vico's and Unwin's studies because you just don't agree with them. But don't think that means that their research is bogus, flawed or useless. If you think so, then why? Point out specific details of why it is flawed. And who thinks Unwin's research is useless, and why? Your fellow gay activists?

AK

Asian,
I agree there. I have had the same problem with feminists. Criticise their often flawed and highly gender biased philosophises, and get labelled as being misogynist or a woman-hater.

Criticise the lack of self-regulation by gays with their lifestyle, and get labelled as being homophobic.

To all of the people using religion as an excuse to be intolerant of their fellow citizens I suggest you have a look at this: http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Farewell-to-the-rabbi-of-tolerance/2005/02/06/1107625057722.html

Matt,
While the Rabbi may have a point regards “tolerance” of others, eventually hard decisions have to be made so that society can function.

The Rabbi places importance on education (eg "Today's problems are likely to continue for a few years, but in due course the education system will help us to re-mould our society.") However as can be seen in the US, university education has become so “liberalised” and left wing as to be completely useless. Students can spend years at universities, and eventually they can debate the meaning of life, but they can’t hammer a nail into a piece of wood or change a light-bulb without assistance. Employers do not want them. Similar is happening in our education systems, where students can pass through the education system but are almost unable to read or count.

Eventually hard decisions have to be made, and widescale homosexuality does not produce a sustainable way of life. That is biological fact, and the lack of self-regulation by many homosexuals (which leads to a very hedonistic and self-absorbed life-style) produces a very poor spiritual life.

When it comes down to basics, a totally liberalised or totally tolerant society simply does not function for very long.

"There are some people who have just enough religion to hate others, but not enough religion to love others."
Thanks mattByrne.

Hey Ringtail,
Do you hammer a light-bulb into a piece of wood, or change a nail without assistance. That’s what happens if you move too far to the left or right.

I personally have seen what happens to a community when gays move into the area, and do not show much self-regulation or self-control. Eventually tolerance runs out, as gays are not always the “victims” by any means.

Feminism and homosexuality are very closely aligned, and both will often use the same techniques of public indoctrination. However history shows that feminists and homosexuals should not be just “unconditionally accepted”.

Timkins,

You say "When it comes down to basics, a totally liberalised or totally tolerant society simply does not function for very long." How do you know this? Have you ever seen this occur? In fact i could argue it is impossible for you to have witnessed this as the society would not have been totally tolerant or liberal simply because you were there. Using an anti gay agenda to have a crack at the liberal arts in universities is also pretty childish dude, and by the way I don't know anyone that would hammer a light bulb into a piece of wood, as it'd break, back to TAFE for you man.

mattByrne,

There are 2 reason why we know "a totally liberalised or totally tolerant society simply does not function for very long":

1. History tells us this. See Vico's and Unwin's studies.

2. Logic tells us this. A totally tolerant society must, by definition, tolerate everything including paedophilia, rape, sexual harassment etc. - indeed, it must also tolerate intolerance itself. ie. tolerance leads to crime because there is no reason for restraint, and the whole concept is ultimately self-defeating.

I guarantee you this, mattByrne, you for one, are most definitely NO MORE TOLERANT than I am.

AK

"Logic tells us this. A totally tolerant society must, by definition, tolerate everything including paedophilia, rape, sexual harassment etc."

No. You're wrong about that. HOW DARE YOU compare homosexuality with these horrible crimes? No. Your logic is flawed and disgusting and lacking of moral virtue. A tolerant society accepts those things which do not inflict harm upon others unwillfully, my acceptance of homosexual people is far from your irrational hatred brought about by a flawed reading of "the good book". Go back and read the article about the Rabbi. You may learn something and evolve a little.

Hi Matt,
No one should be just automatically accepted into any community “unconditionally”, but this is what some people seem to be asking for homosexuals. If you look back at some of my previous posts you will see where homosexuals were accepted quite readily into a community I lived in, "at first but not latter", because they showed very little self-control and self-regulation.

The belief that we can satisfactorily live in a society where “anything goes” is erroneous. For example :- There has been little public complaint regards such things as MTV in the past, but that is now changing also because it has become “sleeze media", and it can affect the young.. see .. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=2990#1991

The belief that education will solve all social problems is also naïve, as education systems can become corrupt. This is why an Academic Bill of Rights is being incorporated into a number of universities in the US. This has often come about from strong objections by the students themselves, because they felt that they were being brainwashed by leftist dogma, and were simply not learning enough that was useful.

See .. http://www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org

I think the same type of backlash is now happening in our education systems, and I personally know of people who have chosen TAFE over university for their tertiary education, because of all the leftist nonsense now occurring in universities. One person I currently work with did a trade by apprentice, then an AD, then a degree in engineering through correspondence. He has rarely set foot in a university and doesn’t want to, because of all the leftist or "lets be totally tolerant" dogma that is now being taught in those places. He is much in demand in his profession.

Matt
I have also worked with a homosexual diesel mechanic, who was a complete expert in his trade, and highly regarded in his profession and in the community.

However he didn’t carry on with all the nonsense that so many homosexuals carry on with, and thought that things such as the Mardi Gras and programs such as “Queer as Folk” were total rubbish and an affront to his sexuality.

mattByrne,

You said: "HOW DARE YOU compare homosexuality with these horrible crimes?"

It appears that you are so consumed with hatred of those who object to homosexuality that you appear to have lost all perspective. Where in my last post did I compare homosexuality with those horrible crimes? In fact, my post never even mentioned homosexuality. My point was specifically about the illogical and self-defeating nature of tolerance. If we are truly tolerant then we must accept everything including what we (narrow-minded intolerant people) perceive to be crime, and not condemn anything.

In fact, your scathing attack on me demonstrates beautifully the very thing that I was arguing. You are totally and utterly intolerant of those people who disagree with you.

AK

Look, I don't hate you, i'm just severely frustrated by your lack of acceptance. Anyway as the law stands, it is legal to be homosexual, and consenting age is 16, I also think the law should include civil unions(ie not religious, because religion is separate from the state and therefore entitled to put rules on who can participate in it - a bit like a club can choose it members), but at the moment that isn' the case and thats for another debate I think anyway. In a liberal society everyone is supposed to be able to live happily amongst each other, whether you like the way a person lives thier life or not, as long as it remains in the boundaries of the law. So please with a cherry on top, stop being so unaccepting of your fellow homosexual citizens.

Aslan I'm not a guy activist I am a heterosexual married man who thinks what consenting adults do to each other is their own affair and nothing to do with me. Your such a rabid zealot you can't see your views for what they are right wing extremist. The figures I mentioned come from one of you fellow ring wing posters BOAZ_David. As for Vico's and Unwin's studies if you bothered to use the brain in your head your could go have a look at the secularist information about these two people. To give you a hint all culture rise and fall the two that have shaped the beginnings of the western world the most were the Romans and the Greeks both of which allowed homosexual marriage.

Matt,
While a homosexual may be able to live within the law, they may not be able to expect much “acceptance” by heterosexuals.

Take away the hype and glamour, and so much of homosexual literature, art, fashion, Tv programs, web-sites, music etc is simply “sleaze” in disguise. However it is not necessary to be a sleaze artist to be a homosexual, and I personally know of one gay male and a lesbian couple who are quite dignified people. However they would be the exceptions rather than the norm I believe.

Too many homosexuals "over-act the part", and so the backlash eventually, and an example would be the WA Liberal party's policies.

Timkins
I have shared accommodation with a good number of gay and lesbian people, about 7, all of them were dignified and definately not sleazy, they aged around 18-22 yrs of age, have been to (but not participated in) the mardi gras. I think like all sections of society gays have their sleazy "out there" people as does hetro society (and it spans all sections of hetro society) so please take a look around the world around and let your gay friend be the example to show that things aren't all that bad

Aslan: you accuse people of being "totally and utterly intolerant of those people who disagree with you". Yet in your own sweeping generalisations, you claim gay people "endure a great deal of physical pain from their activities, and mental torment from their inner conflicts, and then die horrible deaths, usually alone, 30-40 years before their time" and that the gay "lifestyle"..."leads to a lonely painful death at an early age either by AIDS, drug and alcohol abuse or by domestic violence (ie. one of multiple gay partners beats you up and kills you)."

Do you honestly believe the hatred and fear you have in your heart is not painfully evident in such writing? I don't hate you, rather I pity you that you are just so ignorant and have been so brainwashed by your church into believing such negative fallacies about the gay community. I can tell you that I am not a ghost; I am a gay man who has not died from AIDS (nor indeed am I HIV positive), I do not have any substance abuse problems and I have never been in a domestically violent relationship. Of all my many gay and lesbian friends, I have only two who possess one of the aforementioned traits.

We are happy people, many of us with family who have accepted and embraced us, unconditionally, for who we are. I know people like you justify your own prejudices by demonising homosexual people and fantasising about the miserable lives we must all lead, but if you were only prepared to walk a mile in somebody else's shoes, to actually make friends with gay people (and I don't mean in a Christian tough love, "save them from themselves" sort of way) and accept us and our right to form relationships without getting so personally affronted, you may not be so quick to espouse such vitriol. Who knows: you might even learn something new.

Cheers,

Queer Penguin

Matt,
This is now coming down to the important part.

There is “sleaze” within heterosexual culture, and a backlash is now taking place regards such things as MTV.

However, it has become so common, that if a heterosexual points out a negative aspect of the homosexual life-style or culture, then they are normally labelled “homophobic”, and their views discounted or downgraded so to speak.

To avoid any backlash, it is very much up to the gay community to reduce the negative aspects of their culture or life-style , so that “what they actually are” and “how they are being portrayed (often by themselves)” is in better alignment.

I've said it before and I'll say it again you should seek professional help Timmy.

Kenny,

Ad hominem approaches do nothing for your argument. Actually Timkins has put out his case logically and rationally. I smell fear in your responses, not a willingness to debate realistically. Calling people 'homophobic', 'rabid right-wing' or saying that they are in need of 'professional help' is merely an overused attempt to silence any opinion that opposes your own. Thankfully people aren't deterred by that anymore. I would welcome anyone who could actually back up scientifically and with solid evidence (like Aslan and Boaz_David have) their claims about homosexuality.

Cheers

tom_hughes: "I would welcome anyone who could actually back up scientifically and with solid evidence (like Aslan and Boaz_David have) their claims about homosexuality."

OK. http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6670

More as I get time to compile, but it's a good start.

Cheers,

Queer Penguin

tom_hughes Queer Penguin has got it right the point is All the main stream scientific evidence does not support the positions taken by timmy and others. Just have a read of the mainstream web sites and papers, the only place were you find this junk these guys are putting up is from right wing religious groups. The web is full of articles by angry researchers you have had their data misrepresented by these hate groups. And don’t come back with that old chest nut about main stream groups not publishing things like that it is simply not true. You can not of read a scientific journal if you think that. Saying your not close minded does not make it true. The ring wing fundamentalist would have you believe that just about everything we know about human origins, astronomy, physics, chemistry and biology is wrong and what do they base their ideas on a book that have been rewritten and edited a thousand times since it was dreamt up 2,500 years ago. I’ll stick to the scientific methods thanks, observe, theorize and test.

Penguin
I dont recall making many assertions which require 'evidence' my position is based the Biblical one. "Immorality is sin" (of all kinds) and if one does not believe that, there is not a lot of point trying to show other evidence. Hence I haven't tried.
If you want evidence to support the biblical position just read Romans chapter 1.

Oh Kenny...

Funny how for you, mainstream = anything that agrees with you, and junk = anything that you don't agree with.

How about we look at the substance of the research? I read the actual paper referred to in New Scientist: Wainright, Russell and Petterson, "Psychological Adjustment, School Outcomes, and Romantic Relationships of Adolescents With Same-Sex Parents" Child Development 75/6 (2004) 1886-1898. This study has serious methodological shortcomings. (1) it is based on just 44 teens out of 12,105 - hardly a suitable sample on which to base such sweeping conclusions. (2) It deals only with teens with lesbian parents. (3) It does not consider the effect of the teen's early childhood experience before their mother's hooked up with another woman. (4) It relies on dubious self-reporting through questionaires and "in-house" interviews. Which lesbian parent is going to paint a negative picture of their relationship with their teen? How many teens are willing to open up and express their most intimate feelings to a complete stranger? ie. there was no observational data used, which the authors themselves admit is a limitation. (5) Questions asked of the teens included "Have you ever been attracted to [another] female?" If they answered "yes" this was interpreted as a same-sex attraction. But what if the teen only had in mind a deep, "soul-mate" friendship? Should have asked: "Have you ever been sexually attracted to [another] female?" (6) The conclusions in the paper itself are nowhere near as clear-cut as the New Scientist article suggests. In fact, the NS article misrepresents the original paper. The authors basic conclusion is: "Regardless of whether they lived with same-sex or opposite-sex couples, adolescents WHOSE PARENTS REPORTED HAVING CLOSE AND SATISFYING RELATIONSHIPS WITH THEM were more likely to have made positive adjustments at schools as well as at home...our findings are consistent with theories that emphasise the importance of adolescent relationships with parents." Duh!

So what really matters is good relationships with parents. But the study does not show that lesbians are just as likely to be good parents. It shows that if, according to the lesbian mother, they have a close relationship with the teen, that teen is more likely to cope with having a lesbian mother.

In any case, S. Sarantakos' study, “Children in Three Contexts” Children Australia 21/3 (1996), a carefully controlled study by a homosexual sympathiser, found that children with gay parents perform significantly WORSe in every educational category except for social interaction where all 3 groups were pretty much equal. His study is also based on a slightly larger data set (58 children), and used their teachers and actual grades to rate the children making it much more objective and less prone to reporter bias.

Also, 57 life-story narratives of children with homosexual parents published by Rafkin in 1990 and Saffron in 1996 were subjected to content analysis. Children mentioned one or more problems/concerns in 48 (92%) of 52 families. Of the 213 scored problems, 201 (94%) were attributed to the homosexual parent(s). Older daughters in at least 8 (27%) of 30 families and older sons in at least 2 (20%) of 10 families described themselves as homosexual or bisexual. These findings are inconsistent with propositions that children of homosexuals do not differ appreciably from those who live with married parents or that children of homosexuals are not more apt to engage in homosexuality. See

Paul Cameron also did research on the abuse of foster children by homosexual carers. While a successful foster-parenting outcome does not make the news, a highly unsuccessful outcome does. If homosexual foster parents do not differ from non-homosexuals, gross failure at foster parenting -- such as the sexual molestation of foster kids -- ought to occur at rates approximately proportionate to the frequencies of homosexual and heterosexual foster parents. Cameron used Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe, an internet search service, scans the whole text of over 50 regional and national newspapers, largely in the U.S., but also including major papers in Australia, England, Canada, and New Zealand (e.g., Baltimore Sun, Boston Globe, Independent [England], Ottawa Citizen [Canada]). He examined every news story from 1989 through 2001 finding 5,492 stories involving child molestation and foster parenting. Only news stories or first-person accounts were tallied, not editorials nor opinion pieces, so the stories basically covered recent events, not reflections on older items. This technique is obviously different from a comparison study where matched parents -- homosexual and heterosexual -- are randomly drawn from the total set of foster parents to see how they stack up. News stories are reports about ‘the real world,’ and not just responses to questionnaires from people who know they are being questioned or scrutinized.

Cameron found 30 stories about molestation of foster. In 22 stories foster children were sexually abused. Five stories bore upon the character of the foster parent or guardian, but their foster child was not sexually molested. In 3 stories, foster caregivers molested their charges as they were held in group quarters. In 2of the 12 stories involving gays, the homosexual not only molested his foster son, but prostituted him as well. 3 of the gay foster parents already had ‘a record of child molestation’ and yet were given boys to foster parent! In Los Angeles (5/2/96): For the second time in the year, the state initiated action to revoke the foster home license of "Gay and Lesbian Adolescent Social Services" because an additional number of boys reported having been molested by male staff members (counted as 3 homosexual male perpetrators and 6 boy victims)! Much more discussion and details can be found in "Gay Foster Parents More Apt to Molest" Journal of the Family Research Institute 17/7 (2002).

AK

>Paul Cameron also did research on the abuse of foster children by homosexual carers.

Paul Cameron's 'research' lacks credibility. He's been expelled from numerous professional associations on the grounds of ethical violations and fabrication of data. His membership of the American Psychological Association was revoked as long ago as 1983.

A year later the Nebraska Psychological Association adopted a resolution stating that it "formally disassociates itself from the representations and interpretations of scientific literature offered by Dr. Paul Cameron in his writings and public statements on sexuality."

In 1985, the American Sociological Association asserted that Cameron "has consistently misinterpreted and misrepresented sociological research on sexuality, homosexuality, and lesbianism" and noted that "Dr. Paul Cameron has repeatedly campaigned for the abrogation of the civil rights of lesbians and gay men, substantiating his call on the basis of his distorted interpretation of this research."

An ASA committee was formed to critically evaluate Cameron's work. Following its report, the ASA voted to pass the follwing resolution:

"The American Sociological Association officially and publicly states that Paul Cameron is not a sociologist, and condemns his consistent misrepresentation of sociological research."

Furthermore, in his written opinion in Baker v. Wade (1985), Judge Buchmeyer of the U.S. District Court of Dallas referred to "Cameron's sworn statement that 'homosexuals abuse children at a proportionately greater incident than do heterosexuals,'" and concluded that "Dr. Paul Cameron...has himself made misrepresentations to this Court" and that "There has been no fraud or misrepresentations except by Dr. Cameron".

Aslan I went to the CSU web site and looked up Sarantakos it's funny Uni are usually very happy to list papers done by their staff funny thing I could not find anything about any of papers that many Christian groups cite. We often find that some Rabid right winger that work in Uni's will produce papers to support their extremists views that don't seem to make it into peer reviewed journals. As Homo a go go and dealt with the Carmon chap could you please provide the link/info of the peer reviewed journal where the paper "Children in Three Contexts" by Sarantakos was published?
here is a link to CSU citation linker can't find it.
http://cooee.unilinc.edu.au:9003/citation/csu/

BOAZ_David: And I don't recall directly bringing your name up in my postings to this forum (if you read carefully you'll see your name only comes up where I'm quoting somebody else verbatim). But as you insist: Fine, you are of course entitled to live your life in the Bible. I just prefer to live in reality. Let me take a quote of yours to help compare and contrast the two.

The Bible take: "Homosexual behaviour is Sin. Rape is sin, Stealing is sin, Fraud is sin. Not all of those are illegal, but we regard them all as sin."

The Reality take: Rape is illegal. Stealing is illegal. Fraud is illegal. All are crimes that necessarily have victims. Rape especially can cause unimaginable physical and emotional scarring to women for years. For you to even consider putting consensual relationships between two adults in the same category as rape is indicative of your extremist views.

Homosexuality is NOT illegal in Australia, hasn't been since 1994. And there's a reason for this. Our lawmakers, politicians and society in general views the world beyond the blinkered myopism of a literal Bible interpretation, preferring instead to use common sense as their guide. That's why, slowly, despite resistance by the Christian Right, the western world is growing closer to removing all barriers to loving, committed homosexual relationships. Parts of Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Belguim, Spain, parts of the US, France, UK, Netherlands and South Africa now have in place or will shortly have in place gay marriages or civil union options. More countries will follow suit. The Christian Right will resist, will refuse to move with the times - as it did with interracial marriages, equal rights for women and the original decriminalisation of homosexuality, to name but three social evolutions - and they'll stall, maybe have the odd victory now and there in deferring the inevitable. Then reality will sweep through once again and they'll lose. Again.

Cheers,

QP

Perhaps BOAZ_David could reminded everyone what the bible says about rape. I seem to remeber soming about if the victim isn't married then she should marry the person who raped them is that right BOAZ_David, timmy? Oh and I think some money should change hands as well.

As usual gay activists and apologists, such as Homo au Go Go and Kenny, employ "jamming". ie. they hurl all sorts of ad hominem and propaganda at their critics in order to shut them down. Gay activists and marketing experts Hunter Masrden and Marshall Kirk in their book "After the Ball" explain this technique as follows:
"Thus, propagandistic advertisement can depict homophobic and homohating bigots as crude loudmouths...It can show them being criticized, hated, shunned. It can depict gays experiencing horrific suffering as the direct result of homohatred-suffering of which even most bigots would be ashamed to be the cause...our effect is achieved WITHOUT REFERENCE TO FACTS, LOGIC, OR PROOF. Just as the bigot became such, without any say in the matter, through repeated infralogical emotional conditioning, his bigotry can be alloyed in exactly the same way, whether he is conscious of the attack or not... This approach can be quite useful and effective — if our message can get the massive exposure upon which all else depends."

Re Paul Cameron:
Homo's assertion about Cameron are demonstrably incorrect. Cameron is a professional psychologist with a PhD and he did not get expelled - he RESIGNED. See http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_APA-rebuttal.html for the full story including documentation of correspondence etc. demonstrating that Homo's assertions are false.

Isn't it interesting that verious organisations (who's administrator's beliefs often do not reflect the beliefs of the members) to issue "statements" which make assertions about Cameron and his research yet never provide any detailed criticisms of why it is supposedly bogus or discredited. Yet, Cameron's study on the reduced life expectancy of homosexuals was published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal devoted to death studies (Omega), and Dr. Charles Smith of SUNY at Buffalo chair of the session of Eastern Psychological Assn convention in 1993, publicly commended Cameron's novel approach and said he was going to warn the gays at his institution about the hazards of their ways.

Furthermore, Cameron's national sex survey was published in prestigious science journals such as Nebraska Medical Journal, Psychological Reports, Lancet, and Science, and have formed the basis for a number of scientific papers presented to the Eastern Psychological Assn. Thus, it would appear that his research is "discredited" by gay activists, not by scientists.

Re the Federal Judge, Jerry Buchmeyer's claim that Cameron is a fraud:
Buchmeyer is a well know gay sympathiser, and activist judge. The Texas group that brough the case to court even remarked that they were lucky to get Buchmeyer on the case. In any case, what Homo forgot to mention was that Buchmeyer was later overturned by the 5th Circuit meeting en banc (that is, with all the Circuit judges ruling jointly) by a vote of 9-7.
For a detailed defence against Buchmeyer's accusations, see:
http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRR_04_09.html

Of cousre, gay activists will keep claiming Cameron is a liar and a discredited carckpot because they want to shut him up. And as Joseph Goebbels put it: "If you are going to tell a lie, tell a big lie and keep repeating it."

Again, note the lack of critical discussion of the actual data presented. The fact is that Cameron's methodology and conclusions have NOT been scientifically refuted regardless of what gay activists have to say.

Also, note the silence in regard to my criticisms of the cited paper "supporting" gay parenting. Note the silence regarding the Sarantakos's contradictory study. The silence is deafening.

AK

Kenny, I provided the full citation to Sarantakos's paper on several occasions now. Here it is again:
S. Sarantakos, “Children in Three Contexts” Children Australia 21/3 (1996).

If you post your email, I can email you a PDF version (although it is reasonably large).

It was published in a peer reviewed publication: Children Australia, and Sarantakos is not a "rabid right winger" - he's a "rabid left winger"!

AK

Aslan: Actually, I found your silence to my post exposing your hypocrisy far more deafening.

Cheers,

Queer Penguin

Queer Penguin,

I did not make sweeping generalisations about the gay lifestyle. Rather, I cited specific research demonstrating my statements, and would only be too happy to provide you with lots more, including lots from homosexual researchers - especially on domestic violence and drug and alcohol abuse.

Secondly, I do not have hatred and fear in my heart. My writings here have been factual and objectively deal with the published evidence. Unlike yourself, I do not resort to ad hominem - which is a classic indicator of weak arguments and no defence.

I am glad that you don't have HIV. I hope that you will be spared an AIDS related death. Be careful - but I think it may be only a matter of time before you do contract the virus or Hep-A,B or C or numerous other STIs. You can always change you know. There are many many former homosexuals and lesbians who are now happily married with children.

AK

Sorry Aslan - I'm too busy enjoying my life and not spending my time obsessing about how others live theirs to want to be "cured" (which, FYI, has a "success" rate of between 0.0 and 0.1% - http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_fixe.htm).

Cheers,

Queer Penguin

>Cameron is a professional psychologist with a PhD and he did not get expelled - he RESIGNED. See http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_APA-rebuttal.html for the full story including documentation of correspondence etc. demonstrating that Homo's assertions are false.

No cigar, Aslan. According to the APA, members cannot resign once they under investigation, as Cameron tried to do. And contrary to your claim, Cameron's research and his organisation, the Family Research Council, carries no weight outside the Religious Right organisations that rely on his bogus 'studies' to back up their dogma.

The man seems to be so obsessed with homosexuality he will say or do anything to try and prove what terrible people we are. Maybe this is because he was raped by a paedophile when he was a minor; though Cameron himself denies this traumatic event has played any part in his subsequent career.

He is also on record stating that homosexual sex is far more enjoyable than heterosexual sex. "Marital sex tends toward the boring," Cameron told Rolling Stone magazine. "Generally, it doesn't deliver the kind of sheer sexual pleasure that homosexual sex does." If all one seeks is an orgasm, he said, "the evidence is that men do a better job on men, and women on women. Homosexuality," he said, "seems too powerful to resist."

Bizarre!

What most will regard is undeniable is that Cameron is a dangerous extremist with fascist tendencies. Since 1983 he has called for homosexuals to be executed, according to an interview with former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop [Mark E. Pietrzyk, News-Telegraph, March 10, 1995].

And speaking at the 1985 Conservative Political Action Conference Cameron said: "'Unless we get medically lucky, in three or four years, one of the options discussed will be the extermination of homosexuals."

Earlier today I found much later references to Cameron calling for the tattooing, quarantine and 'Final Solution' for gays, but have no time to track them down again this afternoon.

I have better things to do than argue the details of various studies with the likes of Aslan, whose apparently hysterical obsession with the subject of homosexuality seems as abnormal to me as that of Cameron himself.

For those undecided few who may still be reading this thread, I suggest a quick search of "Paul Cameron fraud" will reveal plenty of rebuttal of Cameron's claims and more detailed explanations why his name is mud outside the Religious Right. And while you're at it, investigate the dismal record of the so-called 'ex-gay' movement and 'reparative therapists' -- similarly religiously inspired crackpots who have utterly failed to make reality fit dogma, but don't care how many people they screw up while trying.

There is little in the way of hope for humanrights in this election for men with ts(transseuxalism) who continue to be ostracized and denied decent health care in Western Australia-Political parties throughout australia have ignored the situation of males with ts when developing legislation based on the experience of women with ts they assume that the situation for men is the exact opposite and this is not the case.


The Physical Symptoms of transsexualism in Males
reproductive organs that are incongruent with the male identity
menstruation-bleeding and hormone imbalance
impaired phallus functionality
gynecomastia
hypogonadism

Guy faulk
about time someone spoke about the medical aspect of this. (transexualisim)
That is the ONLY kind of sexual disfunction that I am prepared to recognize. i.e. when there is an identifiable medically related issue involved.

Wrong again, Homo au Go Go!

You said: "According to the APA, members cannot resign once they under investigation, as Cameron tried to do."

This incorrect claim was first made by Mark Pietrzyk who is not a member of the APA, and who is a gay activist and writes for the Log Cabin Republicans, a gay rights group.

Cameron's resignation was sent on Nov 7, 1982 and accepted by the APA President on Nov 29, 1982. By this point, all previous disputes between him and the APA had been settled, and there were no other charges or inquiries into possible ethical violations pending against him. The last previous correspondence from the APA was dated Oct 18, 1982, reminding Cameron that it had closed his dispute with 6 U. Nebraska psychologists.

Note also that the APA President and APA Monitor did nothing to challenge Cameron's decision to resign. It was more than a year later (December 2, 1983) before the ethics committee decided to "drop" Cameron for "non-cooperation".

I did searches on the alegation that Cameron advocating exterminating homosexuals but all the references point to the "interview" with C Everett Koop cited by guess who - Mark Pietrzyk. There was no other independent verification and no reference to Cameron's actual writings, nor is there an actual transcript of the interview. Pietrzyk has already been shown to be a liar so I see no reason to believe him here. Cameron has noted that in the past Sodomy was a capital crime punishable by death. Cameron _MAY_ have suggested that this punishment be reinstituted (a suggestion - if true - I would not endorse) but I can't find any such suggestion in his writings.

Again, note the constant ad hominem against Cameron and the failure to deal with the data.

And when you do your search on Paul Cameron and fraud note the source of all the allegations. They all pretty much end up pointing to our gay activist friend - Mark Pietrzyk.

Ad hominem est ad nauseum.

AK

Excerpt from: The Man Behind the Myth
A Report On Paul Cameron, The Chief Anti-Gay Researcher Of The Theocratic Right

CAMERON'S BACKGROUND
Until 1980, Dr. Paul Cameron was an instructor in psychology at the University of Nebraska. When his teaching contract was not renewed, Cameron devoted himself full-time to a think tank he had set up called the "Institute for the Scientific Investigation of Sexuality"(ISIS) in Lincoln, Nebraska. Under the auspices of this institute, Cameron touted himself as an expert on matters of sexuality, particularly on the societal consequences of homosexuality. Throughout the 1980s, Dr. Cameron's institute published a series of hysterical pamphlets variously entitled: Criminality, Social Disruption and Homosexuality; Child Molestation and Homosexuality; and Murder, Violence and Homosexuality. In these pamphlets, Cameron presented "findings" allegedly showing that homosexuals were disproportionately responsible for all sorts of heinous crimes, including serial killing, child molestation and bestiality.

Shortly after making these claims, however, Cameron came under fire by a number of psychologists whom he had cited in his publications, including Dr. A. Nicholas Groth, director of the Sex Offender Program at the Connecticut Department of Corrections---an expert on child molestation. Dr. Groth and other psychologists complained that Cameron was deliberately distorting or otherwise misrepresenting the results of their studies in order to support his agenda.

In response to these complaints about Cameron from his fellow psychologists, the American Psychological Association launched an investigation of Cameron's research. The APA discovered that Cameron not only misrepresented other psychologists' findings, but that his own studies employed unsound methodologies.

Citing Cameron's breach of the APA code of ethics, the APA expelled Cameron from its membership in December 1983. Cameron claimed that he had actually resigned before the APA expelled him, but APA bylaws prohibit members from resigning while they are under investigation.

Cameron was also censured by the Nebraska Psychological Association, the American Sociological Association, and the Midwest Sociological Society. In 1984, US District Judge Jerry Buchmeyer denounced Cameron for having made misrepresentations to the court in a case involving the Texasstate sodomy law.

Challenges to Cameron's credibility only seemed to spur Cameron to accelerate his anti-Gay activities. In 1987, Cameron moved to Washington DC and set up shop under the auspices of the Family Research Institute, a "anon- profit Educational and Scientific Corporation." From this location, Cameron has continued to crank out his propaganda, periodically updating his brochures and aiming to influence the policy-making community. As Cameron has stated in one brochure, "Published scientific material has a profound impact on society... In a clash between the oreticalethics and hard, cold statistics, the data-linked opinion will always win."


THE NATURE OF CAMERON'S "RESEARCH"
The original wrong doing which led to Cameron's expulsion from the American Psychological Association---distortion and falsification of others' studies and employment of unsound methodologies---continue to be found in Cameron's current research studies. Indeed, Cameron often pads his brochures and articles with citations of his own previous studies, studies which have already been discredited.


The 1983 Isis Survey
Cameron's most oft-cited study is a survey of sexual and social behavior of 4340 adults in five American cities conducted by Cameron's Institute for the Scientific Investigation of Sexuality in 1983. The results of this survey were subsequently published in a number of Cameron's pamphlets and in an article "Effect of Homosexuality Upon Public Health and Social Order."

Cameron was initially inspired to conduct his 1983 ISIS survey shortly after he spearheaded a drive to defeat a Lesbian and Gay rights ordinance in Lincoln, Nebraska in 1982. Making no effort to hide his objectives, Cameron told reporters before the results of the study were in that the purpose of his survey was to provide ammunition for activists wishing to overturn Gay and Lesbian rights laws. Sure enough, Cameron got the results he wanted.

As anyone who has had a basic course in statistics knows, a survey study is valid only to the extent that one can be reasonably sure that one's sample is representative of the population as a whole. To that end, statisticians have developed a complex array of methodologies for ensuring that researchers acquire a sufficiently large, random sample to use as the basis of those studies. Sexuality surveys pose particular problems insofar as people are reluctant to share information about their personal habits and those who are personally conservative are least likely to willingly participate in such surveys. Cameron however, apparently prefers to ignore these methodologies whenever it suits his purpose to do so.

Consider his sampling method. Although Cameron was allegedly able to get thousands of heterosexuals to respond to his survey, he was only able to get 41 male homosexuals and 24 Lesbians to respond. The extremely small sample of Gays would in itself invalidate any attempts to draw conclusions about the sexual behavior of the Lesbian and Gay population. Yet this is precisely what Cameron does.

Even worse, the extremely skewed results of Cameron's survey indicate that he did not even get an adequate random sample of heterosexuals either. According to his survey, 52% of male heterosexuals have shoplifted; 34% have committed a crime without being caught; 22% have been arrested for a crime; and 13% have served time in prison. Twelve percent of male heterosexuals have either murdered or attempted to murder another person. Any researcher who obtained these kinds of results for the American male heterosexual population would have given serious thoughts to tossing out his survey as tremendously flawed. Cameron, however, has chosen to use his survey results to depict Gays and Lesbians as essentially depraved and violent, while skirting over his bizarrely skewed findings on male heterosexuals.


MURDER, VIOLENCE AND CRIMINALITY
Cameron has published three pamphlets which allegedly prove the existence of violent and homicidal tendencies among Gays: Murder, Violence and Homosexuality; Criminality, Social Disruption and Homosexuality; and more recently, Violence and Homosexuality, which is are vised version of the first two pamphlets.

The pamphlet Murder, Violence and Homosexuality asserts the following "facts":


You are 15 times more apt to be killed by a Gay than a heterosexual during a sexual murder spree.
Homosexuals have committed most of the sexual conspiracy murders
Homosexuals have killed at least 350 (68%) of the victims
Half of all sex murderers are homosexuals
Homosexuals committed 7 of the 10 worst murder sets.
These conclusions are based on a sample of 34 serial killers Cameron selected from the years 1966 to 1983. Cameron stacks the deck not only by including phony figures (he includes in his sample the claims of the notorious Henry Lucas, who subsequently recanted his boast that he murdered hundreds of people) but by examining only those serial killers with an apparent sexual motive, allowing him to include John Wayne Gacy and his victims, but exclude the overwhelming majority of serial killers and their victims. This manner of selection distorts the reality of massmurder considerably. As sociologist Jack Levin, author of Mass Murder: America's Growing Menace points out, "The typical mass murderer is a family man. He kills his wife and his children in order to get even. The typical serial killer is a white heterosexual male, like Ted Bundy...Of course there are homosexual serial killers, but they are in the minority."

Cameron's pamphlet Criminality, Social Disruption and Homosexuality consists almost entirely of conclusions reached by Cameron's other studies, including the above-mentioned study on mass murder and Cameron's 1983 ISIS study. On the basis of the 1983 survey, the pamphlet argues that Gays are more likely to use drugs and alcohol, get involved in a traffic accident, murder someone, cheat on their income tax, and serve time in prison (are markable 13.4% of Gays versus "only" 7.7% of male and female heterosexuals have been in prison). Concludes the pamphlet, "Homosexuality is a crime against humanity."


CHILD MOLESTATION AND HOMOSEXUALITY
Linking homosexuality to child molestation is a favorite theme of the religious right, and Cameron happily obliged his friends with statistical "evidence" to support this slander. Cameron's literature on child molestation consists of two pamphlets: Child Molestation and Homosexuality (an early and revised version) and two published articles, "Homosexual Molestation of Children/Sexual Interaction of Teacher and Pupil" and "Child Molestation and Homosexuality."

Cameron's Conclusions:


Gays have perpetrated between a third and a half of all child molestations
Homosexual teachers have committed between a quarter and four-fifths of all molestation of pupils
Gays are at least twelve times more apt to molest children than heterosexuals (revised to "10 to 20 times" more in a later study)
Homosexual teachers are at least seven times more likely to molest a pupil.
Cameron's findings are based in large part upon a review of other researchers' work on child molestation, but in order to get the results he wants, Cameron has to distort the findings of the original studies. For example, Cameron defines all cases of molestation between an adult male and a male child as molestations committed by homosexuals; however this definition is rejected by the very experts Cameron cites. One of these experts, Dr. A. Nicholas Groth, has in fact explicitly stated that the molestation of young boys by adult men has nothing to do with homosexuality:

"...(I)t is a faulty assumption that if an adult male selects a young boy as his victim, his sexual orientation is homosexual. We found that some (73, or 49%) offenders responded exclusively to children---boys, girls, or both---and showed no interest in adults or age-mates for sexual gratification. These men were pedophile in the true sense ofthe word.

"Other (75 or 51%) offenders showed no persistent sexual preference for children but turned to them as the result of conflicts or problems in their adult relationships. Although this group regressed to sexual encounters with children, their predominant sexual orientation was towards adults. In examining the adult sexual lifestyle of this latter group, it was found that the large majority (62, or 83%) of these subjects led exclusively heterosexual lives, and the remaining subjects (13, or 17%) were bisexually oriented that is, their adult sexual activities involved both male and female partners, although here, too, their preference was for women.

"It appears, then, that the heterosexual adult constitutes more of a threat of sexual victimization to the underage child than does the homosexual adult. The offender who selects young boys as his victims has either done that exclusively in his life or does so having regressed from adult heterosexual relationships. Offenders attracted to boy victims typically report that they are uninterested in or repulsed by adult homosexual relationships and find the young boy's feminine characteristics and absence of secondary sexual characteristics, such as body hair, appealing."

Even the conservative Washington Times has rejected the myth of the male homosexual as child molester. In a three-part series on child molestation in the Boy Scouts, the paper reported:

"For decades, Boy Scout leaders have tried to protect Scouts from sex abusers by watching out for men they thought were Gay. They were watching out for the wrong people. Most men who have sexual relations with boys are heterosexual adults, according to several studies of child abusers. They have sexual relationships with women, but children may be their primary or secondary sexual interest...in several cases where a Scout leader was caught molesting boys, other leaders explained they had no reason to suspect the man was homosexual. But some sex abuse experts say that pedophilia seems to be a sexual orientation of its own, rather than a spin-off of a person's adult sexual preferences...The Scouts' "Youth Protection Guidelines," distributed to Scout leaders, says it is a "myth" that "children are at a greater risk of sexual victimization from Gay adults than from straight adults."

"It is also worth noting that historically, heterosexuals have paid little heed to the rights of female children vis adult males. Indeed, the very notion of child sex as a crime is a fairly recent invention. Throughout most of history, children were regarded conceptually as small adults. Talmudic law specified that, although recommended age for marriage was twelve for a female, sexual intercourse and betrothal was permissible with a female child as young as three years and one day (as long as the permission of the father was obtained). Intercourse with one younger than this was invalid from the standpoint of betrothal, but was not acrime. Christian Canon law set the age for legal marriage at twelve for the bride and fourteen for the groom; however, it also permitted intercourse and betrothal with females as young as seven.

"Church doctrine subsequently influenced the development of statutory rape laws. Until the late nineteenth century, English civil law placed the age of consent for sexual intercourse at ten years, violation of the law being merely a misdemeanor. The age of consent in most American states in the nineteenth century was also ten, except for Delaware, which set its limit at seven. It was not until the efforts of social reform movements in the late nineteenth century that the age of consent was raised in most American states to between fourteen and eighteen. Thus, the religious right's argument that child molestation is invariably connected with homosexuals' undermining of moral tradition could not be further from the truth."


WHAT GAYS DO
Cameron has provided anti-Gay organizations with a great deal of research material indicating absurdly high rates of various extreme sexual practices and venereal diseases among Gays and Lesbians. Pamphlets on these subjects include What Homosexuals Do, Medical Aspects of Homosexuality and Medical Consequences of What Homosexuals Do. According to Cameron's pamphlets, the frequency of various sexual practices among Gay men areas follows:


oral sex: 99% to 100%
anal sex: 93% to 98%
anilingus: 92%
urine sex: 29%
fisting: 41% to 47%
sadomasochism: 37%
average number of partners per year: 20 to 106
In regard to venereal diseases, Cameron concludes that Gay men are:


fourteen times more apt to have had syphilis
three times more apt to have had gonorrhea
three times more apt to have had genital warts
eight times more apt to have had hepatitis
three times more apt to have had lice
five times more apt to have had scabies
over 5000 times more likely to have had AIDS
As for Lesbians, they are:


nineteen times more apt to have had syphilis
two times more apt to have had genital warts
four times more apt to have had scabies.

Cameron's "findings" are based upon two main sources: Cameron's own 1983 ISIS survey and various studies which do not employ random sample survey methodology. Indeed, one of the authors Cameron has cited has complained, "For[Cameron] to use our figures to estimate differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals across the board in the general population is ludicrous." Several studies which Cameron cites to support his conclusions about the behavior of Gays are actually studies about Gay men recruited entirely from VD clinics.

Cameron even repeats as fact the outrageous urban legend that Gay men supposedly like to insert gerbils in their rectum (Medical Consequences of What Homosexuals Do), citing a column by the popular journalist Cecil Adams as evidence. However, after extensive research trying to trackdown the source of the gerbil story, Adams has come to the conclusion that it is a fabrication.

What is particularly odd about Cameron's attempts to link Gays with perverted sex practices is that he is not at all disapproving of the same practices when heterosexuals perform them. In his 1981 book Sexual Gradualism, Cameron approved of heterosexual sodomy, remarking, "The anus is potentially 'sexy'...Animals do not use the anus to sexual advantage, but many humans do." He also approved of heterosexual "golden showers" (urinating on one's partner), though he found the practice personally distasteful, because "anything both partners do is OK. "Cameron also gave qualified approval to heterosexual adolescents having pre-marital sex, on the grounds that "active heterosexuality inhibits the formation of homosexuality."

THE HOMOSEXUAL LIFE SPAN
A recent study of Cameron's which has received a great deal of attention among the religious right is "The Lifespan of Homosexuals," a paper comparing 6516 obituaries gathered from sixteen American Gay newspapers over a twelve-year period to a sample of obituaries from regular newspapers (findings of the paper are published in Medical Consequences of What Homosexuals Do). Cameron comes to the following conclusions:

Less than 2% of Gay men survived to old age
If AIDS was the cause of death, the median age of Gay males was 39,
For those who died of other causes, the median age was 42, and only 9% died old,
Lesbians had a median age of 45; 23% died old
2.8% of Gays died violently
Gays were 116 times more apt to be murdered; 24 times more apt to commit suicide; eighteen times more likely to die in a traffic accident
20% of Lesbians died of murder, suicide or accident, a rate 487 times higher than that of white females aged 25-44.

Now it is obvious that AIDS in America is having a hugely disproportionate impact on Gay men, and this would have the effect of lowering the average statistical life expectancy of the Gay population. However, this is not enough for Cameron; he must prove that AIDS is not the result of unsafe sexual practices but is merely one manifestation of self-destructive behavior on the part of Gays and Lesbians. Thus he resorts to culling obituaries from Gay and Lesbian newspapers, a methodology which would be laughed at by any reputable research scholar.

There are a number of reasons why obituaries from Gay newspapers are not representative of deaths among the Gay population as a whole. Gay newspapers were created by and for the urban Lesbian and Gay communities which have only recently flourished (within the past two decades). These communities consist of Gay men and women who are disproportionately young, open, and socially active among their fellow urban Gays. Obituaries in Gay newspapers are not meant to provide a public record of deaths among all Gays, but to allow members of the urban Gay and Lesbian community to express mourning, particularly for those whose lives have been cut short by illness or accident. Lesbians and Gays who live outside these communities or who die of natural causes are not nearly as likely to be reported in a Gay newspaper.

Taking into account these factors would seem to explain some of Cameron's more bizarre findings, such as the fact that the median age of Gays who died from causes other than AIDS is nearly as low as the age of those who died from AIDS, and that Gays are more likely to be murdered, die in traffic accidents, die from heart attacks, cancer, etc. than heterosexuals. Moreover, the fact that Cameron was only able to obtain 133 Lesbian obituaries out of a total of 6516 Gay obituaries over twelve years would seem to suggest that obituaries from Gay newspapers are hardly reflective of the Gay and Lesbian population, unless one is willing to conclude that the vast majority of Lesbians live forever.

CAMERON'S POLICY PROPOSALS
Cameron's diatribes against Gays and Lesbians are bad enough, but even they pale in comparison to the policy proposals he has put forth to deal with the AIDS crisis. Cameron apparently believes that the spread of AIDS is a positive development in helping to rid the world of "perverts." He has told one reporter, "I think that actually AIDS is a guardian. That is I think it was sent, if you would, about forty years ago, to destroy Western civilization unless we change our sexual ways. So it's really a Godsend."

On the other hand, Cameron also views AIDS as being such a large threat to "innocents" that he has proposed nationwide testing for HIV and the forcible quarantine of all those testing positive, either by confinement to their homes or in regional detention centers. He has also advocated the outlawing of homosexuality and the forcible closing of all Gay bars; homosexuals would be required to register with government authorities and have their movements tracked.

At times Cameron has called for even more extreme measures. At least twice Cameron has advocated the tattooing of AIDS patients on the face, so that people would know when they were meeting with an infected person. The penalty for trying to hide the tattoo would be banishment to the Hawaiian island of Molokai, a former leper colony. In the event that a vaccine were developed to prevent AIDS, Cameron has proposed that homosexuals be castrated to prevent them from "cheating" on nature.

Cameron has also argued that the extermination of homosexuals should also be considered a "viable option." At the 1985 Conservative Political Action Conference, Cameron announced to the attendees, "Unless we get medically lucky, in three or four years, one of the options discussed will be the extermination of homosexuals. "According to an interview with former Surgeon General C.Everett Koop, Cameron was recommending the extermination option as early as 1983.

It is not known how many of Cameron's colleagues in the religious right support some of Cameron's more extreme policy recommendations. When Will Perkins, chairman of Colorado for Family Values, was asked whether he supported Cameron's call for quarantine of AIDS victims, he replied, "It's a very complex question, but it has puzzled me that AIDS has not been handled the same way as any other deadly disease in an epidemic form." Kevin Tebedo, a co-founder of Colorado for Family Values, has not been so shy, having been quoted as favoring tattooing and quarantine of those who test HIV positive. Reverend Louis Sheldon of the Traditional Values Coalition has come out in favor of quarantining AIDS patients in what he calls" cities of refuge." David Caton, head of the Florida chapter of the American Family Association, has suggested that homosexuality be discouraged by photographing patrons entering Gay bars and posting these photos in public places such as the post office. In any case, not a single prominent figure in the religious right has publicly repudiated Paul Cameron's writings.

Full article at: http://www.geocities.com/ninure/cameron.htm

Homo,

If you are going to try and discredit someone with such fervor, then please at the very least have a live link! The link you left led nowhere and besides, I very much doubt that a 'geocities' page is a reliable source of information. Better footnoting please

Thanks Homo au Go Go, it seems the only way to break through all this abominable god-bothering gay-bashing is to post at length with the facts (see my lengthy posting on the equally awesome liar Reisman on a previous gay-bashing Muehlenberg article).

You will never persuade those who chose to live with such fear and hatred in their hearts, but at least we should take the trouble to counter with the facts on this website, for those who might be naive or innocent to believe that there is some truth in all this horrible bigoted tripe.

I live next door to a lesbian couple who have a thirteen year old daughter. She has dyed her hair pink, she spends all weekend chattering on her mobile phone, plays her music at full volume, and she is always getting screamed at to do her homework. She is a typical Australian teenager.

The only time I see her face clouded with fear is when she is faced by the god-bothering bigots who occasionally knock on her door, and want to make her feel guilty about her parents, who of course are consumed with love for her. She is a plucky little girl and usually tells them to bugger off. When they get to my door I am usually so angry...

Anyway, if this goes on much longer I will look up some further stuff and post as I can in support of your good self and Queer Penguin (and where is the lovely DavidJS?).

Hmmm.. I fail to see why anyone would attempt to show the 'negative social impact' of homosexual behavior from the 'god bothering religious right'. They need do nothing more than refer people to the actual reason they believe what they do, and it's Leviticus 18 and Romans 1. I see so much energy being expended to defend the practice, or to condemn it, when it boils down to whether u believe the scriptures or not.
Why would u seek to show that 'adultery has a negative social impact' when the commandments clearly condemn it ? I mean we all KNOW that if a partner sleeps around that SOMEone is going to get hurt.

It seems this thread has resolved into 'God bothering Gay bashers' and 'Christian hating Gays'. Each side attributes 'hate' to the other side, and if the tone of the thread keeps up much longer, it might be difficult to find anything of redeeming value in it. All will be lost in a morass of seething mutual hatred.

I suppose the 'right' and folk like mr Cameron are doing what they do for political reasons, trying to persuade non Christians of the 'menace' of homosexual law reform. In the same way the gay lobby is going at it hammer and tong to produce a different result.

It boils down to this. If a conservative government has enough power, they will most likely attempt to shape the law as they see fit, and that may well mean a reduction of existing gay 'rights'. So, gays will be whining about 'imposing' views on them. Similarly, if the gay agenda gets up, Christians will be feeling exactly the same.
This is a no win situation, but it IS the reality of a democratic society. So.. maybe it would be good to try to reduce the amount of 'rabidity' and look more to a degree of understanding that 'this is how it is' and do ones best to participate in the struggle as one sees fit, preferrably without endemic recrimination of others.

BOAZ_David: Despite your emotive language and simplification of the issues, you've got it right that ultimately this is a futile debate. Gay rights activists/supporters will not change their opinion or give ground any quicker than conservatives/Bible-bashers/opponents of gay rights will. Ultimately, these sorts of debates are only ever "resolved" by who has the numbers in parliament to vote something through or vote it down. That is indeed the reality of the democratic society.

Where I take issue with you, however, is your statement that "if a conservative government has enough power, they will most likely attempt to shape the law as they see fit, and that may well mean a reduction of existing gay 'rights'. So, gays will be whining about 'imposing' views on them. Similarly, if the gay agenda gets up, Christians will be feeling exactly the same."

Looking at this from a purely unemotive, rational perspective, the reality is this: legal denial of the existence of long-term same-sex relationships - which is still happening at a state and federal level - directly and adversely affects the couples involved. You or George Pell or Fred Nile or whoever may believe that these relationships are wrong, immoral or against the will of God/contrary to the scriptures, but the people involved in these relationships - the people who know their relationship is every bit as valid, meaningful and productive as their heterosexual counterparts - actually suffer when they don't automatically inherit their partner's superanuation upon death, or when a deceased person's family can legally cut a partner out of their will even when that person has specified them as a beneficiary, or you are denied the opportunity to make decisions about your partner's medical treatment or, as has recently happened, you are denied a war pension when your partner of 37 years, a man who fought to defend Australia, dies.

If, however, these laws were reformed and legal parity were achieved, gays and lesbians would no longer be denied their rights, while at the same time the people who opposed these reforms also would not directly and adversely suffer. You can still wake up in the morning, read the Bible, sing at Hillsong, you can even keep posting to forums like these stating your opposition to homosexuality, but the quality of your life - and the quality of your relationships - is in no way reduced or impeded by implementing equality. We are not imposing on you in any way, shape or form. But when religious dogma filters into the legislature and affects decisions on law and law reforms, that is indeed an unfair and unwarranted imposition of a certain belief system on everybody, and people do directly suffer.

I think in general our system of democracy works on the inverse of the greatest happiness for the greatest amount of people - that is, the smallest amount of unhappiness for the smallest amount of people. On this alone, on a practical level, gay law reform must take place, and that is why it has taken (or will take) place in every state in Australia and in an increasing number of western countries around the world.

This thread breaks down to a basic level. On one side are people who believe that adults should be free to live their lives as they see fit. That they should be able to live that life style without fear or favor from the community at large. So whether you hetero, gay, bi or asexual, whether your a theists or a atheists. Live your life not mine. If your not interfering with other people I don’t care what you do or think.

Then there are those who feel that their narrow minded views should hold sway on the rest of us. Whether from the left or right of the political spectrum I don't care your not telling me how to live my life. Our community can be held together by very broadly base rules that the vast majority can live with. Nearly every culture in history has come up with ones that are very similar. Guess what we have not reached that point yet there is a way to go and the zealots at both ends will be dragged kicking and biting all the way. BOAZ_David so far we have not see a zealot lefty on this site but when we do be assured I will be pointing the finger at them to.

Penguin.
Actually, I was trying to be as dispassionate as possible. You speak quite strongly about 'Christians are not effected' if the gay agenda gets up, and 'Gays are denied their rights, and are SERIOUSLY effected by such denial of rights' (words to that effect).

The point you are missing, is this. We are members of a community, and we exist with a perception of how things should be, as we all do.
If that 'cosmic balance' is upset, and suddenly the world as we knew it does not exist, we find the same sense of delusion as our aboriginal brethren feel about their own sense of loss.
The point I'm making is that it DOES effect us, severely, and as I've pointed out elsewhere, such things NEVER stop with 'equality'. Dont you remember the feminist movement, after they felt they had achieved 'equality' there were a number of radical voices which shouted "Now we have the power, and we want it all" so to speak. I can't give you a reference or source, but the tone of such remarks have been riveted on my soul from the day I heard them.
This persuaded me (thats just one example) of the truth of my often mentioned 'rule' :) that there is only one rule in life, "Rule or be Ruled". This applies to territory, race or culture.
Its just 'how things are'. The nature of the beast. The most inexplicable aspect of that though is that each 'side' cannot for the life of them understand the other. Each things they have the high moral ground and that the other has none.

One cannot take how things 'presently' are in our post 60s sexual revolution west and suggest that this is how they are in other places or should be, because firstly they arn't, and secondly people will laugh at us for our social arrogance and cultural imperialism.

I don't mean to sound rude or arrogant or uncompassionate. But we identify as solidly and completely with the Biblical passages on this matter, as you guys identify with your own views. Probably more so, because we see it as divine in origin.

You may not mean to sound arrogant BOAZ, but you do. Claiming your argument is more sound because it's "divine in nature" has to be one of the most arrogant things I've ever read.

Believing that the collective loss felt by indigenous Australians about their heritage and identity is a "delusion" is also supremely arrogant, but it's no big surprise that you have this perception.

The threat people like you derive from feminism, gay rights, indigenous rights etc would be laughable if it weren't so disturbing on closer inspection.

As I've said before, when the inevitable happens and gays and lesbians are afforded their full rights in Australia (even if it doesn't happen for another 10-20 years), your views will be totally exposed for all their antiquated quaintness.

Cheers,

QP

PS - For clarification: "Affect" and "effect" have no senses in common. As a verb affect is most commonly used in the sense of “to influence” (eg, how denial of rights affects gays and lesbians, Christians are allegedly affected by justice and common sense). Effect means “to bring about or execute”, eg some religious-based institutions exist to effect homophobia. Cheers.

Chook (penguin)
thanx for your helpful spelling assistance. I must confess I have lofty ideas but the ability to express them with pedantic attention to spelling and grammer has not always been my strongest point. Still, I was doing 'machine shop' in my 'Aspendale Tech' days, and with an english teacher like Mr Arder, whom I avoided like the plaque, well here is the result. I can't choose 'effect' or affect for the correct context. Never mind, there is more to life than that.

ABORIGINAL RIGHTS
Let me clarify one point, it looks like my expression failed dismally on that issue also, by delusion, I was not suggesting 'they are deluded' about their loss of rights, the OPPOSITE is true. They are tragically disenfranchised and socially marginalized. My aim was to say how dissappointed they are with their lot. Thanx for pointing that out. I happen to be married to an indigenous person (not of Australia)so I share the sense of feeling of our own indigenous people.

ARROGANCE. It is not 'arrogance' which descibes our position it is simple faith in the simple gospel. The Word of God is our guide. If you want to 'blame' someone, Blame the Almighty, He is the one who gave it to humanity. We might be 'deluded' (correct usage this time) about that matter, but we surely are not arrogant.

All corrections to my poor english are welcome.

Kenny
indeed :)

Boaz, it is quite mesmerising at times to watch you drift to the left when you are directly challenged on human rights issues. But how bigoted and patronising you sound when backing up your right-wing god-bothering mates who populate this website.

Perhaps you think this is your ministry, to find something to agree with in everyone's posting, pop in a few smiley faces and then follow this up with a hefty serving of biblical quotation. Be nice and you might snare a convert. Its not working Boaz, but nevertheless, you have a made a few friends along the way in unlikely places, including me.

Perhaps on the other hand, you are ripe for conversion Boaz. Try believing in two things at once: secular human rights AND your biblical god. Its possible, lots of christians do it, and they don't see the need to bang on to others about their divine inspiration, insulting just about everyone in the process. They just get on with the job of raising families and doing good in the world.

Now I know you won't get this, and will respond with a whole swag of tracts to prove that human rights can only be derived from the bible, or whatever. Spare me, Boaz. Perhaps Pericles will come back and argue the toss with you, he seems happy to follow you down every rabbit burrow, and the rest of us enjoy the sport.

Grace
u almost stump me for words... :) OOPS.. scratch that smiley....
Human rights Grace, .... now see ? u predicted what I would do and now if I DONT do it u will think its because u said not to. *muddles around a bit*..... but I'll say this, I dont see human rights apart from the God given version. And where the heck am I drifting to the LEFT ???? now that truly boggled my mind. Ooh.. I just noticed it, my 'backflip' on my 'delusion' comment about Aboriginals. No, it was just my pathetic english. I MEANT as I corrected. The healing of the aboriginal self perception is something of great importance to this countries collective conscience. It is surely not something I would leave in the hands of the Left. As soon as u say 'left' u imply 'right' also, and that implies and always means political points scoring at the expense of aboriginals. I'm less in favor of 'land rights' as they are currently being exploited by all and sundry and MORE for a truly holistic approach, which may include land as part of the total package.

To me there is no left /right, there is just the Biblical pattern.
"RIGHT" is usually associated with 'big business' etc etc, but thats not where I come from. I have as many axes to grind with them as I do with the Left. You should have a read of the prophet Isaiah, how he cries against those who would take advantage of the fatherless and the widow, and the minor prophets (small books) just to see how LEFT they are ! But to suggest that the 'Left' is in any way connected to the Biblical concept of justice is something I'm not prepared to concede, because it feels like they have hijacked the truth but rejected the author.
I get sickened when I see those protests at Detention centres which are more about advertising the Socialist Alliance and raising its profile than justice for assylum seekers. (In my opinion)

Sooooo.... just call me mr predictable.

So predictable, Boaz, but I won't cross you off my dance list..

MINISTRY 101.

Step 1. "Find something to agree with" .. that will put them at ease.
Step 2. "Slip in some Bible verses to capitalize on the new 'at ease' feeling u have produced in Step 1 above.
Step 3. "Gather the 'flock' together and sing 'Kum ba ya' "

C'mon Grace.. finding something to agree with is surely plain good manners and is in harmony with "Credit where credit is due". I don't want people to think of me as being too small minded to acknowledge good things they say. Besides, its good social interaction.

If I apply the Word to any issue, its because I believe it is appropriate, and as u can see, it does not win me any popularity contests, nor is it likely to be more effective because I mention agreement with people about some things.

If you were Christian Grace, this is what I'd be saying to you ==>
"I love this forum, its a place where we can share with people meaningfully, such a change from just 'taking in' all the time like we do at Bible study." U see Grace, sharing Christ is what its about. On some issues we will find ourselves at total loggerheads such as on THIS thread, but on the others, its more congenial. Pericles and I have had a good go, looking at important issues. If that kind of thing (as with you) constitutes a small seed in the heart which later may produce fruit, well and good. If not, its not that I didn't try.

When the first missionaries went to China, they buried more of their own children than they had converts, for years and years... but if u look at China today, the church is bigger than the whole population of Australia. One of our church members is involved in bible translation among the Yali tribe in New Guinea which murdered his own father.

http://www.worldteam.org/yali/ttools-tc.htm
That link has reference to the actual thread here.. (homosexual behavior-see "politically incorrect translation") and how the Yali reacted when they FIRST heard about it, because they had never known of it in their whole tribal history. (they spat on the floor and gaggled)

The least I can do is spend a few moments on an internet forum.
Though last night we had a good gathering of about 20 people who will attend the Maroondah festival and 'minister' to all and sundry.

arrrgh... I posted that and heard the 'u have mail' noise, and it was yours, so that big post is not connected to your 'not removing me from your dance list' :)

Homo au Go Go,

I am really enjoying every post you make attacking Dr Cameron, because it gives me another opportunity to expose the LIES, PROPAGANDA and UNETHICAL TACTICS AND CONDUCT by gay activists. So keep those accusations coming - you just keep reinforcing my arguments!


CAMERON'S BACKGROUND
Actually Cameron was Associate Professor in Human Development and the Family, not "an instructor in psychology."

ALLEGED MISREPRESENTATIONS
See my last post. I already showed this was a lie. Just because a person uses another's research for a purpose for which the original author did not intend, does not mean that they distorted or misrepresented it. Note that NO SPECIFIC EXAMPLES of Cameron's alleged distortions/misrepresentations have been offered.

1983 ISIS STUDY
Gay activists claim Cameron's study and methodology is statistically bogus, but note that it has been published in a number of scientific peer-reviewed (and some very prestigious) journals (e.g., Nebraska Medical Journal, Psychological Reports, Lancet, and Science), and have formed the basis for a number of scientific papers presented to the Eastern Psychological Assn. Compare this to the gay activists, who publish their criticisms and "refutations" in left wing newspapers and on yahoo websites!

Thus, it would appear that only gay activists (and other gullible people who listen to them) think Cameron's research is bogus, not scientists.

Furthermore, Cameron's sex survey was one of the first national sex surveys to be drawn on a random sample. Random samples are supposed to give representative samples. Theory aside, however, proof is always in whether the technique "works;" that is, whether Cameron's results stack-up against other well-done surveys. For instance, how do FRI's results compare to the recent U. Chicago effort? Even though U Chicago effort had a much greater budget it only got responses from 3,200 adults. Cameron's study got responses from 5,200 adults. In the end, the results were actually very close.

SMALL SAMPLES
Activists argue that the small number of reponses (41 male homosexuals and 24 Lesbians) invalidates any attempts to draw conclusions about the sexual behavior of the Lesbian and Gay population.

Firstly, this claim (which comes straight from gay activist Pietrzyk - who else!) doesn't even accurately report how many gays and lesbians were in Cameron's sample. Cameron reported comparisons between those who were exclusively heterosexual v the combined group of bisexuals and homosexuals. There were approximately 85 gays and 70 lesbians for each comparison (as in all such studies, not every respondent answered each question). Combining bisexuals and homosexuals has become rather typical because their distinguishing characteristic is having same-sex relations.

The U. Chicago sex survey also combined bisexuals and homosexuals. It captured only 43 bi/homosexual men and 27 bi/homosexual women in its sample!!!
See Laurnarm, EO, Gagnon JH, Michael, RT, Michaels, S. (1994) The social organization of sexuality: sexual practices in the United States. Chicago: U. Chicago Press.

The reason for these seemingly low numbers is that Cameron, unlike Kinsey and the bulk of studies in the sexological literature, utilized random area cluster sampling techniques. Because homosexuals make up only a tiny fraction of the population (1-2%), they show up in small numbers in any survey that randomly draws from the places people live. However, it is possible to have a fair degree of confidence in the generalizability of his results to "urban homosexuals-in-general," at least for the time he did the survey.

Kinsey had 2,000 volunteer homosexuals. But Cameron's findings, based on a random sample a twelfth the size of Kinsey's, are far more apt to be representative of homosexuals in general. In fact, as studies about homosexual lifestyles and habits accumulate, Cameron's conclusions look more and more "solid." For eg, Cameron reported that 4% of men and 16% of women claimed that they had been "raped." The U. Chicago survey did not ask about rape, per se, but reported that 22% of women and 2% of men were "forced to do something sexually at some time."

YOUR CHOICE?
Basically, it boils down to believing:
1. Paul Cameron who is professionally trained (PhD in psychology) psychological and sociological researcher who has presented papers at professional psychological associations, and published his findings in prestigious academic peer-reviewed science journals such as Science, Lancet, Psychological Reports, and who has responded to criticisms leveled against him with documentatory evidence demonstrating their falsity,
OR
2. Mark Pietrzyk (and his gullible regurgitators), who is not a psychologist, sociologist, statistician or qualified in any science at all (so what would he know about statistics or methodology?) but is a member of gay political club with a PhD in political science, who publishes his totally unsubstantiated and in most cases demonstrably wrong, criticisms in left wing papers and on Yahoo websites...

Much more detailed info and refutations to specific claims of distortion etc can be found at:
http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_APA-rebuttal.html

Is Mark Pietrzyk and a few websites regurgitating his bare-face lies the best you can offer? Come on Homo, surely you can do better than that?

AK

Aslan,

You're relying entirely on Cameron's own defence of his work; work which has been condemned not just by Pietrik (a conservative gay journalist) but by a series of professional associations, including the prestigious American Psychological Asociation and American Sociological Association. The original complaints about Cameron came from researchers whose work he seriously misrepresented, not from gays.

Thanks for the invite to footnote all my comments, but I work two jobs and have better things to do. Despite your footnotes -- all from from Cameron himself -- I have more faith in professional organisations such as the APA and ASA than in Cameron. Perhaps this is partly because I have the advantage of living amongst the gay community, knowing hundreds of gay people in all their diversity and knowing first hand that Cameron's claims are a crock. Of course, you don't need to know hundreds of gay friends to conclude Cameron is a dangerous man suffering from a hateful obsession. I'm confident most unbiased readers will come to that very conclusion.

Consequently, I really don't care if you and your fellow travellers in the Salt Shakers and Australian Family Association continue to
cite Cameron's bogus studies in your parliamentary submissions inter alia, because to all but those few MPs who are already theologically-insane, a single hysterical Cameron claim discredits the entire submission.

He's fast becoming one of the best allies we've got. Maybe he's really one of us?

This is turning into 'My scholar can kick your scholars butt' :)
just read Romans 1 homo.

>just read Romans1, homo

I've read it, David, and I don't believe it. I simply don't believe The Bible is the unerring word of God. Though not without its truths and profundities, it was written by men, not God. Consequently, it is only as good, and just as flawed as the men who wrote it -- not one of whom even knew Jesus when he walked the Earth. Paul, who wrote Romans, seems a particularly flawed man if the accusations of misogyny levelled against him are true. Certainly, he recommended heterosexual marriage only for the weak. Celibacy was his preferred lifestyle for all.

Leviticus and Romans do not stand in the way of my relationship with Jesus, whom I embrace in good conscience.

GOGO
Paul is the one who wrote "Husbands love your wives as Christ loved the Church and gave Himself up for her"

Not much by way of 'misogyny' there mate :) The most difficult verse Paul ever wrote (I think he was momentarily stumped for words) was "and women will be saved by having Children"..but I put that in the bigger context of all that he said.
With this in mind, have a read of what a 'feminist Jew' writes about him, it came as quite a surprise to me (just now)
http://www.crosscurrents.org/eisenbaum.htm

You don't believe the Bible. OK.. that much is clear and can be regarded as the basis on which your approach is founded. Likewise, I do believe it and so on.

The preferred state in the light of the 'work of the gospel' is celibacy. It is not a 'command' It is his clearly expressed personal opinion, which he differentiated from 'revealed' truth. (quite noteworthy in itself that his man KNEW what was from God and what was from his opinion)
Have a nice day

Boaz, you dismiss the debate between Aslan and Homo au Go Go on Cameron's credentials as no more than "my scholar can kick your scholar's butt". Wrong, Boaz. Homo au Go Go has blown Aslan's poor silly butt out of the water with the facts.

Every time god-botherers rush to their american fundy websites for "scientific" support on gay-bashing etc they come up with another set of nonsensical "statistics" and "conclusions". There are hundreds of people paid to write this sort of lying, devious, and cold-hearted propaganda in america and publish it on websites for the consumption of the naive and the stupid. That does not it make true.

The fact is that Cameron (and his acolyte Aslan) has no more credibility on homosexuality than your own biblical tracts when it comes to describing what goes on in the real world that most of us inhabit.

Thankyou Grace for that bit of guidance.
Aslan seemed to give a reasonable defence in his most recent posting....
I did read it and noted some important points.
But as they say, people come here to 'seek validation' of existing views.
The debate between Aslan and gogo was about the accuracy of information/research which sought to expose homosexual behavior and its negative social impact. My debate is 'what does scripture say'.

So.. I better put my head back in the ecclesiastical sand .. my ears are getting cold.

Right on cue, Homo au Go Go!

Thanks for another opportunity to expose the lies and propaganda of gay activists.

Yes, I am relying on Cameron's own defence of his work - as any court of law or tribunal would do. The fact is that Cameron has provided irrefutable documentary evidence showing that he did resign (he was not expelled) and his resignation was accepted by the APA, and that the APA also acknowledged that the disputes between himself and the 6 other members who accused him of misrepresenting their work, had been closed. Furthemore, the specifics of the disputes (and much more) was covered in exchanges between Dr. Cameron and various adversaries from the U. Nebraska between October 1985 and March 1986 in the Nebraska Medical Journal.

Note also that the APA power structures have been dominated by gay activists for years. Indeed, this is precisely why Cameron decided to resign in the first place, because the APA was no longer a forum for serious discussion of the psychological aspects of homosexuality! Cameron's reasons for resigning were published in the APA Monitor (official newsletter of APA) in March 1983.
See http://www.familyresearchinst.org/APA_Monitor-letter.html

Note that Cameron's reasons for resigning are because he believed the APA had become an abortion and gay rights advocacy group instead of serious scientific forum.

The above link also contains an image of the "expulsion" letter which was sent a year after Cameron had already resigned. Note that the reason they stated for dropping Cameron was NOT because he was found guilty of misrepresenting other people's work, but that he refused to abide by the APA's "ethical principles" which prohibited him from discussing sexual orientation as a psychological disorder. In other words, the APA's own correspondence with Paul Cameron is a slam-dunk refutation of all the gay activists lies about Dr Cameron. Basically, the APA is no longer a professional scientific origanisation - they are now political and social policy advocates for gay the rights movement.

As for the ASA, they too made loud public statements about misrepresentation with no substantiation except for certain researchers claiming that their work had been misused. The problem here is that Cameron drew valid conclusions from others research which those researchers did not agree with because they are not politically correct or do not support the gay activists agenda. For example, Sarantakos' concluded in his paper on children in three contexts that children perform best if they have two married heterosexual parents. That is what Sarantakos himself concluded. However, it is also quite valid to conclude that children perform WORST when they have homosexual parents. As a gay sympathiser, this is not what Sarantakos intended, but it is a valid conclusion nonetheless.

I only know a handful homosexual people (5 male homosexuals, 1 lesbian who are different ages and totally unknown to each other as far as I know) but Cameron's research stacks up pretty well against these people: 2 are dead (died in their 30s), one has tried to kill himself on several occasions, one was abused by their former partner, and one was a paedophile.

I don't usually cite Cameron's papers in my submissions - I prefer to cite the work of homosexuals themselves. For example, a recent study conducted by the Alternative Lifestyle Organisation (ALSO) and the Australian Drug Foundation found that homosexuals have a much higher rate of drug usage than does the general population. For example, “65% of gay, lesbian, bisexual and queer men aged 20 to 29 and 36% of women in the same category have used ecstasy. This is compared to 19% of men and 12% of women in the same age group in the national survey.” James McKenzie, “Study finds higher drug use within the community,” Brother Sister, 6 July 2000, 3.

Or how about Ethan E. Bickelhaupt, “Alcoholism and Drug Abuse in Gay and Lesbian Persons: A Review of Incidence Studies” Journal of Gay and Lesbian Social Services 2/1 (1195) 5-14
Kurt A. DeBord and Phillip K.Wood, “The relevance of sexual orientation to substance abuse and psychological distress among college students” Journal of College Student Development 39/2 (1998) 157-168
John L. Martin and Deborah S. Hasin, “Drinking, Alcoholism, and Sexual Behavior in a Cohort of Gay Men” Drugs and Society 5 (1990) 1-2, 49-67
D. Mosbacher, “Alcohol and other drug use in female medical students: a comparison of lesbians and heterosexuals” Journal of Gay and Lesbian Psychotherapy 2/1 (1993) 37-48
Paul M. Roman, “Gay Men, Drinking and Alcoholism” Contemporary Sociology 25/3 (May 1996) 422-423
Christine Flynn Saulnier and Brenda A. Miller, “Drug and alcohol problems: Heterosexual compared to lesbian and bisexual women” Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality 6/3 (1997) 221-231
William F. Skinner and Melanie D. Otis, “Drug and alcohol use among lesbian and gay people in a southern U.S. sample” Journal of Homosexuality 30/3 (1996) 59-92
Ron Stall and James Wiley, “A Comparison of Alcohol and Drug Use Patterns of Homosexual & Heterosexual Men” Drug and Alcohol Dependence 22 (1998)

Even the Sydney Men and Sexual Health (SMASH) report found that 82% of Australian homosexuals sometimes use recreational drugs. An update of the SMASH report found that 21% of those surveyed used amyl at least weekly, 33% used marijuana at least weekly, 16% used heroin, cocaine or speed at least monthly, and 12% injected other drugs. Thus homosexuals and lesbians are at least 3 times more likely to be drug abusers than heterosexuals.

And Paul Cameron is not alone in noting that their homosexuals are overrepresented among paedophile offenders. Drs Freund and Heasman of the Clarke Institute of Psychiatry in Toronto reviewed two sizeable studies and calculated that 32-34% of the offenders against children were homosexual. In cases these two doctors had personally handled, homosexuals accounted for 36% of their 457 paedophiles. Dr. Adrian Copeland, a psychiatrist who works with sexual offenders at the Peters Institute in Philadelphia, said that, from his experience, paedophiles tend to be homosexual and “40% to 45%” of child molesters have had “significant homosexual experiences.” Dr. C. H. McGaghy estimated that “homosexual offenders probably constitute about half of molesters who work with children.”
See K. Freund, “Pedophilia and heterosexuality vs. homosexuality” Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy 10 (1984) 193-200. See also K. Freund and R. I. Watson, “The proportions of heterosexual and homosexual pedophiles among sex offenders against children: an exploratory study,” Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy 18 (Spring 1992) 34-43; A. Blass, Boston Globe August 8, 1988; and C. H. McGaghy, “Child molesting” Sexual Behavior 1 (1971) 16-24.

An English study asked 930 gay men whether they had ever been “sexually molested or raped?” – 28% answered “yes.” In half (47%) of these cases the victim was either forcibly anally penetrated or an attempt to do so was made. Of men over 21 years of age, 52 cases (66% of the total reported) “were assaulted by regular or casual sexual partners.” The authors of this study (who appear to be homosexuals themselves) note that “Fantasies of the sexually forceful man, the pleasure of ‘being taken;’ and the excitement of power driven sex are very common in gay culture and pornography. All these collective sexual fantasies normalize sexual abuse and rape of gay men by gay men, providing motivation, justification, and normalization for the assault. It is difficult to see how a climate of intolerance towards sexual aggression can be achieved when sexual aggression is one of the mainstays of collective sexual fantasies.”
See F. C. Hickson, P. M. Davies, A. Hunt and P. Weatherburn, “Gay men as victims of nonconsensual sex” Archives of Sexual Behavior 23 (1994) 281-294

Or take a look at some of these:
Claire Renzetti, Violent Betrayal: Partner Abuse in Lesbian Relationships (Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc., 1992)
Diane Bush, “Violent Betrayal: Partner Abuse in Lesbian Relationships.” Contemporary Sociology 22/3 (May 1993) 355-356
Vallerie E. Coleman, “Lesbian Battering: The Relationship between Personality and the Perpetration of Violence” Violence and Victims 9/2 (Summer 1994) 139-152
Claire Dandeneau, “Violence in Gay and Lesbian Domestic Partnerships” Sex Roles 36 (Mar 1997) 431-432; Ned.A. Farley, “Survey of Factors Contributing to Gay and Lesbian Domestic Violence” Journal of Gay and Lesbian Social Services 4/1 (1996) 35-42
L. Kevin Hamberger, “Intervention in Gay Male Intimate Violence Requires Coordinated Efforts on Multiple Levels” Journal of Gay and Lesbian Social Services 4/1 (1996) 83-91
Mary P. Koss, “Men Who Beat the Men Who Love Them: Battered Gay Men and Domestic Violence” Journal of Sex Education and Therapy 19/2 (Summer 1993) 148-150
Monica A. Landolt and Donald G. Dutton, “Power and Personality: An Analysis of Gay Male Intimate Abuse” Sex Roles 37 (Sept 1997) 335-359
Lettie L. Lockhart and Barbara W. White, “Letting Out the Secret: Violence in Lesbian Relationships” Journal of Interpersonal Violence 9/4 (Dec 1994) 469-492
Sotirios Sarantakos, “Violence in Gay and Lesbian Domestic Relationships” Journal of Family Studies 3 (Oct 1997) 258-259
Betsy Stanko, “Men Who Beat the Men Who Love Them: Battered Gay Men and Domestic Violence” British Journal of Criminology 33/3 (Summer 1993) 449-450
Lisa M. Waldner Haugrud and Linda Vaden Gratch, “Victimization and perpetration rates of violence in gay and lesbian relationships: gender issues explored” Violence and Victims 12/2 (1997) 173-184
Wayne F. Winters, “Men Who Beat the Men Who Love Them: Battered Gay Men and Domestic Violence” Violence and Victims 8/1 (Spring 1993) 85-86.

And there is much more as well. In fact, there is so much published material on the negative effects of the gay lifestyle that who needs Paul Cameron!

Homo, simply repeating the same old lies time and time again won't make them become true.

I guess you're using Goebels' method: "If you are going to tell a lie, tell a big lie...and keep repeating it."

Actually, there is quite a lot of similarity between the gay activists' methods and those employed by the NAZIS. Both told bare faced lies with no substantiation and both silenced anyone who opposed them. Note that I am NOT saying that Homosexuals are all NAZIS - just that they have employed the same propaganda tactics in order to achieve their agenda.

As far as lobbying governments go - well we'll just see about that. Let me tell you that the Church in Australia has had a gut-full of the homosexual and radical left's social agenda. The giant is waking and he is not happy. Recall October 9, 2004.

AK

Oh Grace, you just make me laugh!

If you really think that Homo au Go Go has blown my "poor silly butt out of the water with the facts" then that says more about your own grasp of logic, truth, facts and your reading comprehension ability, than it does about the credibility of Paul Cameron or myself.

Keep on posting your drivel, Grace - it just makes you look more and more irrational, and more and mnore sillier.

AK

Stands back and watches Aslan, Grace and homo go at it hard and fast...
go Aslan :)

No thanks Boaz, been there, done that. Aslan is quite capable of making a fool of himself without any help from me.

On Feb 2, ASIAN mentioned NAMBLA's [the North American Man-Boy Love Assn] involvement with the gay and lesbian movement [ILGA - International Lesbian and Gay Association] He provided a mass of back up references. I would like to add a few more.
Homosexual supporters like Kelpie have denied any connection, but I quote the Melbourne Herald-Sun 22/10/93: " United Nations. The United States expressed deep embarrassment yesterday over an unwitting vote giving a group linked with the North American Man Boy Love Association, consultative status at the United Nations.
"The Man Boy Love Association reportedly advocates pedophilia. "Britain and many other nations were among the majority that voted to grant consultative status to the International Lesbian And Gay Association at a July councl meeting in Geneva. "The countries were unaware the gay group counted among its members the North American Man Boy Love Association".

Other proof can be seen in the Lamda Report November 1993, and The Washington Blade, Nov 5, 1993.

How do homosexuals and supporters explain that connection between NAMBLA and the ILGA?

It should also be noted that male homoseuals who comprise less than 2% of the adult male population account for 85% of AIDS cases. [Evidence presented by the Gay Lobby itself at the Industrial Relations Commission in 1994, and backed up by more recent Commonwealth HealthDept. statistics.] Homosexuality is a health hazard, and should never be encouraged or supported in any way.

Aslan,

Despite our disagreement over the validity of Cameron's research (a subject I will return to), I don't have any doubt at all that the incidence of drug abuse, suicide and domestic violence is high amongst gays and lesbians.

Where I differ from you and Cameron and the rest of the religious right is that I understand these problems are primarily the result of homophobia, not of some monolithic 'homosexual lifestyle'.

The religious right has opposed every step towards equal rights that gay people have achieved since the 60s. Many of you would prefer it if we were still 'illegal'. Yet you seem to refuse to even imagine that it is just this kind of persecution that creates the very social ills that you decry.

Indulge me. Imagine growing up straight in a world in which you find straight folk are a small and still largely despised minority. Your parents, who’ve never actually met an openly straight person, make it clear from the start they don’t like ‘breeders’. Consequently, you have to hide an essential part of yourself to your family to avoid being thrown out of home and disowned. You spend the best of your formative years in schools in which your peers reserve the nastiest terms of abuse for the likes of you. Consequently, you have to pretend to be gay to avoid being ostracised, bullied or straight-bashed. Your teachers know it’s taboo to even talk about your kind in class except when teaching that the unerring Word of God says it’s not really murder to kill you.

Imagine that you manage to make it to adulthood without throwing yourself off a cliff. You might even be lucky enough to find love. However, street violence against straights is so high you only ever feel brave enough to hold your partner’s hand in public at a straight pride march. Your government denies your relationship equal legal rights on the specious grounds that heterosexuality is a bad choice and must be suppressed. And some of those MPs are still a-hankerin’ fer the not-too-distant days in which hets were thrown in prison simply for being straight.

No Aslan, this horror story isn’t the ‘gay agenda’. It’s not ‘Gay HQ’s’ secret plan for world domination. It’s not some sick revenge fantasy. It’s exactly how your beloved religious right ensures gays grow up right here and right now. Of course, some of us have it a bit better; some much worse, but the basic story remains the same.

Surely no-one could be surprised that many people treated like this are likely to suffer from maladies such as clinical depression, suicide, alcoholism, workaholism and drug or sex addiction.

Of course, none of this is an excuse for gays to wallow in victimhood. For most gays and lesbians, coming to terms with the validity of their sexuality and 'coming out' is a profoundly liberating experience. A debilitating burden is lifted.

The coming out experience also opens up myriad possible pathways. Not all of these are healthy, and some people will choose more dangerous, er, routes. Some will remain stuck in redundant patterns of behaviour they developed in order to cope with life in the closet. Others will go on to forge boringly ‘normal’ and productive lives.

I believe that some parts of 'gay culture' as it currently exists can make these maladies worse, but I also know from personal experience and the testimonies of countless others that the religious right's old time elixir (active ingredient: persecution) is really the primary cause of the problem.

I believe full equal rights under the law (including marriage) will make it easier for more and more gay people (which history shows to be a constant minority in all populations regardless of public policy) to live happier, healthier lives and thereby cause far fewer problems for the larger society.

For conservatives, the goal of greater social stability would be best achieved by making more conservative life choices (such as same-sex marriage) available to, and increasingly acceptable amongst, gays and lesbians.

With less persecution there will also be less counter-provocation. There will be less fuel to feed radical critiques of marriage and even monogamy. There will still be many gays who choose to reject these things, but an increasingly articulate and conservative section of the gay population will emerge to balance the liberal and radical left voices which currently dominate gay community debates.

Though I am myself of the liberal left, I would welcome such a development. You see, I really do believe it tales all kinds to make a world.
______

While we’re at it …

Aslan says: “the APA is no longer a professional scientific origanisation [sic]- they are now political and social policy advocates for gay the rights movement”.

Q: Why would the APA, the peak body representing the vast majority of American psychologists, allow a ‘small group of militant homosexual agitators’ to force it to turn its back on the billions of dollars its members could make ‘treating’ homosexuals by attempting to ‘turn them straight’? Why would it give up such a goldmine so easily?

A: Because they’ve come to know ‘reparative therapy’ is a crock. Today, the vast majority of psychologists agree that attempts to re-orient a person’s sexuality are both futile and potentially very damaging. Only a tiny part of the psychological & psychiatric profession -- mostly religious fundamentalists -- still pursues such ‘therapies’. These practitioners themselves dare claim only a tiny and temporary ‘success’ rate.

Aslan again: “Actually, there is quite a lot of similarity between the gay activists' methods and those employed by the NAZIS. Both told bare faced lies with no substantiation and both silenced anyone who opposed them. Note that I am NOT saying that Homosexuals are all NAZIS - just that they have employed the same propaganda tactics in order to achieve their agenda.”

This is rich coming from the religious right, which enjoys long, ugly and ongoing history of persecuting and silencing ‘heretics’ of all kinds (e.g. the crusades, witch hunts, blasphemy laws, sodomy laws, censorship and ‘classification’ laws. Did someone mention the Spanish Inquisition?)

Homo
Welcome to the world of the 'Christian minority'.
When it comes to 'despised people' its not easy to find 'more despised' people than evangelical Christians. 'us'. Every hollywood producer seems to take vindictive delight in portraying us as 'loonies' who have a few screws loose.
The RACIAL AND RELIGIOUS TOLERANCE ACT 2001 has been used only against CHRISTIANS.
The popular image of 'us' is that of holywood. I constantly get 'anti Christian' slurs, and am sometimes writing emails to those who think we advocate SLAVERY etc.
But we dont resort to drugs or other 'comforts'. We look to the Lord for our strength. He is the reality who can be relied on.

Hi David,

> When it comes to 'despised people' its not easy to find 'more despised' people than evangelical Christians.

Only when they knock on your door and try to sell you The Watchtower before turning tail and screaming “you’re gonna burn in Hell!” once they notice the Tom of Finland print in the hallway.

I try hard not to despise evangelical Christians. And I’m willing to try loving them in the spiritual sense, but the closest I’ve come was when a Christian missionary insisted on becoming my f*ck buddy.

As a teenager I was involved in the Assemblies of God for a while, so I know why otherwise good people get caught up in fundamentalism. I also believe I understand the forces at work that make it a threat to free thought and free societies.

>Every hollywood producer seems to take vindictive delight in portraying us as 'loonies' who have a few screws loose.

I suggest the likes of Pat ‘New World Order’ Robertson and Jerry ‘Tinky Winky’ Falwell do a good enough job of that without the help of Hollywood. However, I agree evangelicals don’t inspire the glowing celluloid tributes they once did. At least the censors have never banned the very mention of evangelicals in Hollywood films. From about 1930 until the mid 1960s, the religiously-inspired Hayes Code banned even the suggestion of homosexuality in Hollywood films, though some clever directors used subtlety to buck the system a little. I recommend the documentary film The Celluloid Closet, an entertaining and informative look at Hollywood’s depiction of gays and lesbians in the 20th century (out now on DVD).

>The RACIAL AND RELIGIOUS TOLERANCE ACT 2001 has been used only against CHRISTIANS.

So far, that may be the case, but such anti-vilification laws also prevent extremist queer pagans claiming evangelical Christians are possessed by demons from Hades and should consequently be summarily executed by squadrons of vigilantes. Although I have reservations about anti-vilification laws (they can make free speech ‘heroes’ out of mere bigots), defaming an entire class of people and encouraging hatred and violence towards them rightly tests the limits of free speech.

>I constantly get 'anti Christian' slurs, and am sometimes writing emails to those who think we advocate SLAVERY etc.

That’s a shame. Take some comfort from the fact that at least ‘Christian’ isn’t the universal schoolyard euphemism for ‘pathetic’; and ‘God-botherer’ is nowhere near as popular a term of abuse (or express the same venom) as ’faggot’, ‘cocksucker’ or ‘arse-bandit’.

But yes, I know from recent personal experience that telling some people you believe in Jesus generates an even more hostile response than if you told them you believe in alien anal probes.

Historically, it’s only 140 years ago that The Bible was routinely used to defend slavery, but the churches have come a long way on the issue since the 1860s. Of course, more liberal church-folk played key roles in the fight against slavery and the subsequent civil rights movement. For this, such people are worthy heroes, along with the likes of Abe Lincoln (who may or may not have been gay) and Barnard Rustin (who most certainly was).

>But we dont resort to drugs or other 'comforts'. We look to the Lord for our strength. He is the reality who can be relied on.

Well, you’re not *supposed* to look to drugs and other comforts, but real life tells a different story. It’s not uncommon for even the most pious of churchmen to be enslaved by the bottle or caught seeking ‘other comforts’ – often from members of their own flock. Witness the admissions of adultery from the likes of Jim Bakker, Jimmy Swaggart, Oral Roberts, Jerry Falwell and many others. Even one of my greatest heroes, Dr Martin Luther King Jr, was also a serial adulterer.

Not one of us is perfect. We are all ‘sinners’. The best we can do is to do our best in good conscience. We could do worse than follow the words of Jesus as claimed by Mark:

“[Jesus said:] ’You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.' This is the first commandment. And the second, like it, is this: 'You shall love your neighbour as yourself.' There is no other commandment greater than these.

Homo,

I was waiting for this. It is a standard response: "Yes, the homosexual community has lots of problems - but it's all YOUR fault!"

As I noted earlier, most homosexual's problems are nothing at all to do with "homophobia" but with homosexuals' own inner conflicts. In 1977 (4 years AFTER the APA declared homosexuality was not an illness) ten thousand members of the APA were polled at random, asking them their opinion on the 1973 decision, and in an article entitled “Sick Again?” Time magazine summarized the results of the poll: “Of those answering, 69% said they believed ‘homosexuality is usually a pathological adaptation, as opposed to a normal variation,’ 18% disagreed and 13% were uncertain. Similarly, sizable majorities said that homosexuals are generally less happy than heterosexuals (73%) and less capable of mature, loving relationships (60%). A total of 70% said that homosexuals’ problems have more to do with their own inner conflicts than with stigmatization by society at large.” Note that this was in 1977 when the level of homosexual acceptance was still much much less than it is today!

Moreover, Susan Holt, coordinator of the domestic violence unit of the Los Angeles Gay Lesbian Center, said that “domestic violence is the third largest health problem facing the gay and lesbian community today and trails only behind AIDS and substance abuse…in terms of sheer numbers and lethality.” See Susan Holt, "Ending the cycle of domestic violence" Gay Lesbian Times, 9126196, 39.

And I suppose the fact that 85% of all HIV/AIDS sufferers in Australia is the fault of intolerant heterosexuals as well?

Homo asks: "Why would the APA, the peak body representing the vast majority of American psychologists, allow a ‘small group of militant homosexual agitators’ to force it to turn its back on the billions of dollars its members could make ‘treating’ homosexuals by attempting to ‘turn them straight’? Why would it give up such a goldmine so easily?"

Answer: Because homoexuals make up less than 3% of the population and only a fraction of those seek professional help. ie. there is no real "gold mine" of treatment revenue here.

RE RELIGIOUS RIGHT'S PERSECUTORY ACTIVITIES:
Homo asks, "[What about] the crusades, witch hunts, blasphemy laws, sodomy laws, censorship and ‘classification’ laws. Did someone mention the Spanish Inquisition?"

What about the Crusades, Homo? Which Crusade in particular? One of the worst had nothing at all to do with Christianity but was the State's (England and France) way of getting rid of all the sons of nobleman who had no inheritance (ie. a nobleman's 2nd and 3rd son) and were going around causing political trouble. Other crusades were in direct response to the Muslim sacking and occupation of Jerusalem after they had slaughtered all the Jewish inhabitants.

The actual events of the witch hunts and Spanish inquisition were nothing at all like the popular media portrayal of them. While witch hunts are the one blight on the history of the church, the extent and severity of those practices and atrocities have been recent book "For the Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformations, Science, Witch-Hunts, and the End of Slavery" In it he provides detailed documentation and historical anaylsis of what really happened.

AK

Oops! My last sentence somehow got a bit muddled up.
It should have said:

"While witch hunts are the one blight on the history of the church, the extent and severity of those practices and atrocities have been greatly exaggerated. Scoiologist, Rodney Stark's recent book "For the Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformations, Science, Witch-Hunts, and the End of Slavery", provides detailed documentation and historical anaylsis of what really happened.

And BTW, Homo, it was EVANGELICAL Christians who ended slavery not liberal ones (they supported it for the most part). eg. Samuel Wilberforce, John Newton and Granville Sharpe. Sharpe's contributions are inscribed in English Law.

AK

Evangelical Christianity.. what a scourge eh :)
In the USA, staff at the Integrity bank begin the day with prayer..
hand in hand.
At the end of the day.. a teller may sing "Amazing Grace".. .my goodness..
I truly think we are beginning to see signs of true revival......
"nothing can stop us now" :)) as the song goes.. but hey.. I'm not so stupid to make a cheap socio political shot about that.. Nothing worthwhile happens unless God is in it.. all for HIM :)

Aslan Stark is a well know fruit loop not a historian.
I remember read a exert from this book what a load of thrash I will try to look for the link mean while for those interested in a opposing view try this one http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/000387.html

Kenny,

Here we go again.... Cavalier dismissal. No explanation. No reasoned reply. No reference to specific errors. Just blatant ad hominem.

Yawn...

AK

Homo
that last response to mine was quite reasonable.. and I do sympathize with you about some of your bad experiences in the Assembly of God.
To be honest, I feel that some of the high profile examples of this group will in due course self destruct in a rather spectacular manner.

Take Hillsong, one of my favorites that I point to in terms of political clout, the Pastors father (Houston) was a pedophile. Thats in the public arena, so I'm not speaking out of order here. It gives me no joy to say that, but moral struggle is a fact of life outside and inside the Church. It kind of 'stands out' more when its discovered in the Church.

When I went on my orientation walk between 2 villages in Borneo, I met up with some locals who were to be my guides/companions. One of the guides was the principle of the Bible school. He was/is a dedicated and terrific man. But while we were interacting getting ready to go, his wife was undressing me with her eyes.. no mistake. I found that a rather BIG struggle to deal with.(single at the time and late 20s) I learnt more about them, and that their marraige would have been an arranged one. We all have to know what is moral and right, and just 'decide' and we either do it or we fall into sin.
The Corinthian church was rife with immorality 'that is not even found among Pagans' Paul could say.

We do need to love our neighbour, after loving God first. But loving God should mean we follow acceptable sexual norms. Defined by God.
The lure to adultery can be quite strong, and we have to fight it, and accept either abstinence or marraige. Its the same with homosexual behavior I believe. If u are 'attracted' to the same sex, it needs to be fought just like the attraction to another mans wife should be. Its no less real. I truly believe there is a degree of brain chemistry balance involved in all of this. (thus speaketh the amature neuro scientist :)

Boaz,

Re Hillson and Brian Houston's father (the padeophile), it should be pointed out that Brian Houston showed no nepotism of favouritism in dealing with his father. Houston Jr was livid when he discovered what his father had done and suspended him from all ministries and made a public statement to the church calling him a sexual predator.

BTW, I am not a member of Hillsong, Assemblies of God, or a friend of Brian Houston. My tradition is much more theologically conservative.

AK

ASLAN .. thanx for that.
It does need to be pointed out. Importantly so.

Their 'prosperity' gospel is a bit of a worry also.

Again, another homosexual has been abusing multiple young boys:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,12262011%255E1702,00.html

I can't recall a case of when a school teacher molested a pupil of the opposite sex. That's not to say there are no cases - I don't doubt there are some - just that they are so rare that I can't recall any cases.

AK

Aslan wrote:

>I can't recall a case of when a school teacher molested a pupil of >the opposite sex. That's not to say there are no cases - I don't >doubt there are some - just that they are so rare that I can't >recall any cases.

That tears it.

Cases of opposite-sex teacher-pupil molestations and illegal affairs are frequently reported in the press, yet Aslan cannot recall a single case.

I'm sure there's not a single reasonable reader out there who would now have any doubt of the twisted depths of Aslan's seemingly all-consuming homophobia.

Furthermore, his inability to concede even the slightest empathy over the effects of homophobia on gay people suggests the man's extremist bigotry borders on the psychpathological.

Just why is he so obsessed with this subject?

Adieu.

Aslan rather then get your info form dodgy sources why don't you go to one we should all be able to agree on the actually gov stats.
here’s a link http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/tandi193.html
have a read.

BOAZ_David everyone is should be concerned with the type of Christianity being preached for hillsong other Christians especially.

sorry I forgot to put this on http://www.aifs.gov.au/nch/issues5.html#homosexual
the general site wich is very informative.
http://www.aifs.gov.au/acssa/research/offchar.html

Kenny
I read a review this morning which mentioned that the Hillsong pastor (Houston) has backed away to some degree from his former 'Health and Wealth' approach. I applaude this along with any move toward a more Christ-like manifestation of Christianity.
But I still worry about the 'big is beautiful' syndrome. I also remember with vivid recollection "I ...have...sinnnned" ..Jimmy Swaggart. and Jim Baker.. debacle. Its the old story, the bigger they are, the harder they fall. Or.. perhaps its just that they built their empires not on the sure word of Jesus, but on the ego of man ?
Have u found out yet why Jesus would not drive a BMW ? :) I've looked at superstring theory..

Kenny,

Thanks for those links. They actually reinforce my point.

The first link from the AIFS is a bit of a straw-man. It says:
"The stereotypic 'paedophile' can be classified as being more likely to be an extrafamilial, preferential offender who indulges in same-sex or 'homosexual' offending...the assumption that paedophiles who engage in same-sex sexual abuse are homosexuals is more a societal myth than a reality."

The authors appear to be arguing that because the typical pedophile is not a homosexual then homosexulity has nothing to do with pedophilia.

This is a straw-man. Those like myself who object to the homosexual lifestyle and social agenda have never claimed that the typical pedophile is a homosexual. What we claim is that homosexuals are over-represented in the breakdown of child molestors. ie. homosexuals who comprise less than 3% of the population account for 25-40% of child molestations. This fact is confirmed in your second link (the paper from Aust Inst of Criminology) on page 2 where it states that approx 75% of the offenders were heterosexual which means that approx 25% WERE HOMOSEXUAL!

This percentage may increase as well given that the extra-familial sample was much less than the familial sample, and extra-familial offenders were far more likely to report a homosexual/bisexual orientation.

So, again, the data shows that homosexuals are over-represented among child molestors.

AK

Aslan Anybody else of sound mind who reads these links will now see you for what you are a straight out liar.
You said the first link says ""The stereotypic 'paedophile' can be classified as being more likely to be an extrafamilial, preferential offender who indulges in same-sex or 'homosexual' offending...the assumption that paedophiles who engage in same-sex sexual abuse are homosexuals is more a societal myth than a reality."
That is wrong the document only has two references to homo's one is in a table the other is in a sentence on page 2 which reads " More than three-quarters of the offenders reported an exclusively heterosexual orientation. ExtraFamilial and mixed-type offenders were more likely to report either a homosexual or bisexual orientation" Now if you look at the table you will see that they are saying in intrafamilial the rate for homosexuals is 2.5 and for Extra-familial it is 15.3 Now my question to you is are you delbratly misrepersenting this report of are you not very good at reading/comperhension?

No if you had read the second link you would have read this and I asume ignored it but I post here for all to see.

“'Homosexual' Offenders
The stereotypic 'paedophile' can be classified as being more likely to be an extrafamilial, preferential offender who indulges in same-sex or 'homosexual' offending (Willis 1993). The basic societal assumption is that paedophiles who sexually abuse same-sex children are members of the homosexual community (King 1994). That is, there is no qualitative difference between a homosexual man who engages in sexual behaviour with another adult male, and a male who engages in sexual behaviour with a boy. As recently as 1995 this perception has resulted in moves by the Victorian Government to enact a special clause in the new Victorian Equal Opportunity Act 1995 allowing employers to discriminate against homosexuals (gay men and lesbians) who apply for jobs which involve the supervision, care or instruction of children (Stewart 1995). Yet the supposed link between homosexuality and paedophilia, and the assumption that paedophiles have come from the gay community is not backed up by evidence.
An offender's sexual orientation, whether he perceives himself to be homosexual, bisexual or heterosexual, is not mentioned as a risk factor, indicator, or characteristic in typologies of child sex offenders (Finkelhor, Williams, Burns and Kalinowski 1988; Wurtele and Miller-Perrin 1993). Offender typologies account for same-sex sexual abuse purely on the biological sex of the victim and offender, regardless of self-reported sexual orientation.
Willis noted that the attempt to classify offenders as 'homosexual' and 'heterosexual' involved 'crude categories [that were] very unreliable given the extensive overlap of the [offender's] behaviour' (1993:20). Willis also reported that 'substantial numbers of non-familial child molesters do not display or report deviant sexual preferences' (1993:22). That is, many offenders offend against both male and female children, defying strict classification on the basis of sexual orientation. In addition, Willis indicated that many offenders do not have any outward signs of so- called 'deviant' sexual behaviour, such as homosexuality.
Summit (1990) stated that male child molesters tend to cultivate adult female partners regardless of whether they engage in same-sex or opposite-sex offending behaviour. Despite a lack of references to support this claim, it is one of the few statements specifically referring to 'homosexual' offending and the link to heterosexual (adult-adult) sexual behaviour.
In a national study of child sexual assault in day care centres in the United States, Finkelhor, Williams, Burns and Kalinowski (1988) found that males were disproportionately represented as sexual abusers despite accounting for only 5 per cent of staff. Yet Finkelhor's group found no offender characteristics which would distinguish the abusers from other staff or people generally. It was specifically reported that stereotypic paedophile characteristics were notably absent. Finkelhor and colleagues made recommendations for the screening of all applicants for day care positions, but did not specify an individual's sexual orientation as a risk factor. A more recent review of studies of sexual abuse in day care also made no reference to offender's sexual orientation as a risk factor (Kelley 1994).
In a discussion paper focused on men's role in primary education, King (1994) found that there was no evidence of a relationship between homosexual male teachers and paedophile activity. Newton (1978) found that homosexual teachers were no more likely to engage in same-sex sexual abuse than were heterosexual teachers. In a study of child sexual abuse by clergy, Camargo and Loftus (1992) found that there was a clear distinction in terms of masculinity and femininity factors between clergy who were active homosexuals (adult-adult), and those engaged in same- sex paedophile activity.
In their classic study aimed at determining sexual behaviour and orientation in the community, Kinsey and colleagues (1948, as cited in DiLapi 1989), found that crimes such as child sexual assault had been historically incorrectly attributed to homosexuals and that, if anything, heterosexual males were more likely to be involved in sexual abuse. Despite methodological flaws, and what has been charitably described as a 'minimisation' of the negative effects that sexual abuse has on child victims (Finkelhor 1979), this study was one of the few to attempt to define the prevalence of homosexuals as offenders in cases of child sexual abuse (Freund and Watson 1992).
Finally, studies of offender arousal patterns have indicated that paedophiles and homosexuals have different patterns of response (Freund and Watson 1992), with paedophiles not surprisingly being more aroused by images of children. Overall, what little evidence there is, although flawed, appears to indicate that sexual orientation does not play a part in child sexual assault typologies, and that the assumption that paedophiles who engage in same-sex sexual abuse are homosexuals is more a societal myth than a reality. “
."

In short Aslan you are a liar and a fool, keep getting brainwashed by the F'n'L.

Thanks for that Kenny.

Now 'anyone with a sound mind' can see that your furore is raised merely at a confusion of the two links. Perhaps it is YOUR 'reading and comprehension' that you are having problems with? :p

Aslan has clearly taken the 'stereotypic 'paedophile'' quote from the 'Homosexual Offenders' link that you so kindly pasted for us. (So we can safely say that, yes, he has read it!)

As for your assertions about the table, I read that report too and I believe that Aslan is referring to this quote: “More than three-quarters of the offenders reported an exclusively heterosexual orientation.” If this amount are reported to be heterosexual it would seem a logical claim that just under 25% were homosexual/bisexual. (unless there are some other major orientations we are not yet aware of!) Which is obviously worrying considering that the homosexual/bisexual community makes up less than 3% of the wider society!

Hope that clears up some of your confusion in the matter.

cheers

Read the table don't infer.

Kenny,

Your emotion has clearly clouded your objectivity in this. And yes I did read the links - where do you think I got those citations from!?

Let me step you through it.

1. The AIFS link states what they perceive to be a commonly held view: "The stereotypic 'paedophile' can be classified as being more likely to be an extrafamilial, preferential offender who indulges in same-sex or 'homosexual' offending."

2. The AIFS link offers evidence to show that this sterotype is unreal, and conclude: "the assumption that paedophiles who engage in same-sex sexual abuse are homosexuals is more a societal myth than a reality."

3. However, you cannot use this argument against myself or FOL or Paul Cameron or most others who object to homosexuality and have concerns about the link between homosexuality and pedophilia because we have never claimed that the stereotypical pedophile is homosexual. What we claim is that homosexuals are over-represented among child molestors.

4. The Aust Inst of Criminology link reinforces our claim. It notes that just under 25% of their sample was homosexual or bisexual.

Why is this a lying or being foolish?

Tom Hughs suggested that you may have got confused between the two documents, but I fail to see how you could be so reckless in your reading of my last post where I explicitly referred to the papers I was citing from and even gave you the page number (p. 2) from the Aust Inst. of Criminology report!

So who's really lying, misrepersenting the report, or not very good at reading/comperhension?

AK