Hahahahah! Oh Kenny, you make me laugh. The same old words in different orders. Come on- got anything new for us?

So, let me see- you disagree with an Australian Social Monitor survey because you think that in time, everyone will come and ‘see the light’ with you. That’s a great way of presupposing issues. Obviously you will disagree with every survey/study that doesn’t line up with your views. Not a really…intelligent way of handling things.

I’m sorry, Kenny- you were trying to support your case… by suggesting I go and ask a farmer about his animals? Not sure I see the connection. I was asking for scientific evidence (which you, so far, seem incapable of producing- NB: your opinions are not fact. Sorry to disappoint.)

I would have thought that since 98% of society affirms their heterosexuality, that the 1-2% would be the ones who would have the onus to prove how they differ. Forgive me if that seems too logical.

And just because I’m a little confused- which of my links were to a ‘God Botherer’ site? The University of Melbourne one or the American Journal of Sociology? And exactly how do your ravings about ‘flat earth’ and ‘big foot’ have any relevance to this discussion? I look forward to your (always amusing) answers

Made a little mistake in a previous post. Don’t like to see any miss-information.

The statement,
“I wonder if SpongeBob has ever visited the household of a non-custodial parent. These household are much more common than gay households. Estimates are that there are approx 150,000 children living in single parent households in the US, but 24 million children (34 percent) live absent their biological father (ie 160 times greater)”

This should of course read,
“I wonder if SpongeBob has ever visited the household of a non-custodial parent. These household are much more common than gay households. Estimates are that there are approx 150,000 children living in gay parent households in the US, but 24 million children (34 percent) live absent their biological father (ie 160 times greater)”

Of course the situation is almost identical in Australia.
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/94713ad445ff1425ca25682000192af2/a790ff34bb1f14eaca25699f0005d616!OpenDocument

But despite the wide scale harm to children, men and eventually women that this system has created, journalists seem to prefer to write about homosexuality, which is more “sexy”, and likely to sell more copies.

Would this be correct Jane?

Kenny,

You like making lots of noise but your comments have absolutely no substance. Which of my evidence is "discredited"? Simply saying it is discredited doesn't make it so.

Are you saying that activists's Kirk and Madsen's book "After the Ball" is discredited? McWhirter and Mattison's "The Male Couple"? Jay and Young's "The Gay Report"? The "Sydney Men and Sexual Health" survey? The "Sydney Gay Community Periodic Survey"? The "Melbourne Gay Community Periodic Survey"? The "Queensland Gay Community Periodic Survey"?

Where have the following been discredited?
Diane Bush, “Violent Betrayal: Partner Abuse in Lesbian Relationships.” Contemporary Sociology 22/3 (May 1993) 355-356;
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;
Patrick Letellier, “Twin Epidemics: Domestic Violence and HIV Infection among Gay and Bisexual Men” Journal of Gay and Lesbian Social Services 4/1 (1996) 69-81;
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

Come on Kenny - put up, or shut up...

Mollydukes,

You make me laugh. You say you want a "more tolerant society" and then display your INTOLERANCE by calling us "intolerant, irrational bigots."
Do you realise how foolish and hypocritical this makes you look?

BTW, who fought for women's rights? Who fought for the abolition of slavery? Christians! Indeed, evangelical (or "fundamentalist") Christians!

It was actually evolutionists (including Charles Darwin) who considered Blacks to be less than human. See Darwin's "The Descent of Man".

You said: "a ‘real’ scientific paper requires a hypothesis about what underlies the correlation. The paper you provided did not do that."

Do you have a reading comprehension problem Mollydukes? Didn't I say that the doc I posted was merely a summary of the scientific research complete with full refs? Refute their conclusions or shut up.

Timkins
SpongeBob is a ficticious cartoon character, he lives in Bikini Bottom and his best friend is Patrick, an unemployed starfish who adores him. Together they fight a range of awesome child scale cartoon evils, and sometimes they win. Buster the Rabbit on the other hand is far more likely to drop in on the sorts of non-traditional family groupings you worry he's ommitting from his schedule. His Dad Arthur the Rabbit takes him everywhere. So, if he hasn't already been to single dad families, maybe its time to invite him. That's if Secretary Spellings will let him broadcast his discoveries.

To those Christian commentators who insist on wheeling out research to support an especially unpleasant angle in this debate, ie that homosexuals are in some way not as nice or as sane and healthy as hetrosexuals, shame on you, and shame on your tawdry standards of selecting data to create rather than provoking awareness and debate truths. And double shame on you for attempting to divert AIDs crisis reports into some sort of fearsome inditement of why homosexuality is so bad for society; its one of the cheapest and lowest moral angles I've heard in a long time. The list of reports on same sex iniquities you've presented is so selectively biased to endorse your evident loathing of gays, its laughable, particularly as there are just as many if not more reports on hetrosexual spousal, child and self abuse, let alone health issues that are a part of existence. Your exploitation of responsible open, highly qualified and accessible research into problem areas of gay life is an insult to the various authors cited, whom I can assure you, did not spend years developing this invaluable material to have it lifted for some twisted anti-gay agenda.

Aslan as JaneRR has pointed out what is discredited is your twisted spin on other peoples research which is much in the same vain and the F of L. This link shows a responsible use of this type of research http://www.triz-journal.com/archives/2001/11/d/.

You see Aslan your so use to trying/fabricating evidence to fit your world view you think everyone else does. As for your comment on evolutionists do you believe that racism didn’t exist before Darwin? Young Charles while being one of the first people to discover evidence for evolution he was wrong on many things. Evolution like all science has evolved.

Jane R

Thankyou Jane for your answer.

However I was mainly referring to how much the press will report on some issues and not others, even if the others are much more relevant to the average person. Are sales the driving force behind what the press does, or is it moral conscience and journalistic integrity?

You seem to be suggesting that there needs to be a public lobby group for this, and a public lobby group for that, but in the mean time we have the press (including a publicly funded ABC) and an enormous number of publicly funded research institutions who are supposed to be keeping the public informed of what is happening, and what is most relevant.

SpongeBob (whoever he is) is in the US, and you seem to be suggesting that there is some type of homosexual discrimination occurring in US schools and SpongeBob is a part of all that.

I have pointed out an issue of discrimination that is much more relevant to Australian children at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=3044#4178

However no answers to that question in that post, and I think it being avoided.

Perhaps SpongeBob is somewhat secondary and the issues now become :-

- Is discrimination tolerated for some, but not others?
- Does the press avoid issues of discrimination, if it believes those issues will not sell publications

So could I mention it again.

“Now this is probably not healthy media for girls or boys, yet no objection has been shown by the media, or by any journalist to this media, (although there seems to be comment regards the cartoon character SpongeBob in the US).

So why would that be?”