Fortunately at least, in Senator Greig's home state, we won't see an attempt for a while to criminalise young gay men's sexual activity and discriminate against gay families thanks to the defeat of Colin Barnett's mob. It will be up to WA gays to make sure the Gallop Government doesn't backslide.

Senator Greig could have added aged care to his list. The process followed by Aged Care Assessment Teams (ACATs), which assess the level of aged care a client needs, doesn't allow for recognition of same-sex partners. Same-sex couples in residential aged care are treated like dirt. The partner of a gay man or lesbian in residential aged care has difficulty accessing information and obtaining the rights that opposite sex partners have as a matter of course.

Aged care is a bastion of homophobia - partly thanks to service providers being large church organisations for the most part. However, these issues are starting to be addressed. Recently, I went to a NSW Anti-Discrimination Board forum on the issues facing older gays. Research was presented by Dr Jo Harrison (University of Adelaide) regarding what's happening in America. Things are slowly starting to move over there with respect to ageing issues. But it is up to us here to make sure gay men and lesbians obtain absolute equality in all aspects of our lives - including when we get older.

Hi DavidJS,

Your comments are true and expand on the issues raised by Brian Greig. But he did mention Aged Care in his article, it's in the sixth last paragraph.

Cheers,
Kelpie
PERTH

Oh, he did too! How embarrassing! At any rate, I thought I'd expand on the issues. I work for a lobby group for older people and pensioners and was invited to the ADB forum in that capacity. It was a really interesting afternoon and I learned how backward aged care is for GLBTQ people.

I understand Senator Greig will relinquish his Senate seat at the changeover in July. If this is the case, I hope he continues to concentrate on gay law reform in his home state or even on a national level in some way or other. I am not an Australian Democrat but I will say we sorely need people of his capacity and integrity.

We need to be more discriminating in our use of language. A word can now mean whatever we want it to mean.

We 'discriminate' to choose the 'best' car, food, house, partner etc. So discrimination is good if it gets a better result and bad if it does not give give good results? Or will we redefine 'good'?

Percy,

If you believe that legal and financial discrimination targeted at gay and lesbian people, same-sex couples and their children is "acceptable" or "good" - then you should just come right out and say it, rather than being obtuse.

Kelpie
PERTH

Senator Greig is absolutely correct in all he says. How can Ruddock, in all good conscience say what he has said when he must surely know full well that the Federal Government is not tolerant of gays, lesbians and their families. How can they be tolerant when they don't even recognise gay and lesbian couples and their families?

Maybe it is question of priorities. I mean, obviously equality for homosexuals is high on Brian Greig list of priorities. For me however, any concern does'nt even exist. I've got better things to do with my time!

But I definitely do not want homosexuals imposing their values onto me.

Davo

Nobody is "imposing their values on to you". Gay and lesbian people and their families just want the same legal recognition that you have. Nothing more.

Thankfully, there are people (unlike you) who do care about issues that don't just affect their own lives.

Although I am gay, I can appreciate Davo's comments. I don't want anyone imposing heterosexuality on me. However, religious fringe groups set up these conversion therapy clinics, violating every form of psychology and social work ethics, in an attempt to convert gay people to heterosexuality. Sure, they claim to be acting in the interests of the "client". But then they would say that wouldn't they? They patronisingly see their duty as "rescuing" gays from the misery of homosexuality as they see it. Of course, being Aboriginal in John Howard's Australia ain't exactly a barrel of laughs. But strangely I've never heard of a Christian group trying to change Aboriginal people to being non-Aboriginal. Interesting.

Brian Greig derides our government for not including 'sexuality' in codifying legislation with a UN treaty, a step which would presumably preclude government 'discrimination' of alternative lifestyles. I would ask Brian if he then opposes the 'discrimination' of sexual persuasions aside from homosexuality. Bestiality is illegal in all Australian jurisdictions as far as I know. So is paedophilia. They are sexual acts that are regulted by the government, and one can be prosecuted for them, rejected employment on the basis of them and so forth. I'm not neccessarily comparing, but it is illustrative that someones 'sexuality' can of course be 'discriminated' against, as all laws pertaining to sex are value judgments at the end of the day.

A disabled person cannot but act to the fullest of their ability. A person of color cannot change their appearance. However, a second party's knowledge (be it employer or the government) of one's sexual orientation requires an outward manifestation of behavior to show them. Why should someones alternative sexual behavior be protected by Human Rights legislation? This is merely a round-about attempt to slide unpopular policies, driven by a tiny minority, into the public domain on 'rights grounds'. For instance gay marriage and age of consent laws (see Western Australia). This is exactly how the 'politically correct imperialists' overruled Tasmania's sodomy laws by way of UN/High Court intervention. What next: 'rights' protected polygamy?

Firstly, paedophilia (child molestation) is not a right. It is a violation of children's rights. It does not deserve legal protection any more than a preference for raping women should be made legal. It is so bloody predictable that someone always raises the issue of paedophilia when homosexuality is mentioned. I'm going to make a point of mentioning it when heterosexuality is discussed for a change.

Secondly, discrimination can (and has) occurred on the basis of perceived homosexuality. No outward manifestation, such as telling your employer, is necessary. In fact, many gays go to huge lengths to hide their homoexuality because of discrimination and possible job loss.

Anyway, why should gays hide their sexuality? Do straights take off their wedding rings when they come to work? Do they shutup about their opposite sex partners in general conversation? No. Why should gays have to act any differently?

Thirdly, it is gays' sexual orientation, not sexual behaviour, which is the issue here. The two may be linked but they are different. Gay men and lesbians are discriminated against whether they have lived with one partner for 10 years or if they are not in a relationship or even if they haven't had sex for years. It's irrelevant to bigots. They don't care if we have sex or not. For them, BEING homosexual is the problem.

Finally, as for polygamists they can speak for themselves. I don't know any, I don't know what they want and I don't know what the issue has to do homosexuality.

Ah! _DavidJS_ - you said everything I wanted to!

It's appalling that some people would try and associate animal molestation and child rape with consenting adults. And it's fatuous for _mcrWhite_ to argue that, "they weren't trying to make a link between these things", when that's EXACTLY what s/he was trying to do.

_mcrWhite's_ claim that gay law reform was an "unpopular policy" that was being pushed "by a minority", is also nonsense.

Every poll ever undertaken in Australia, at least in the last decade, shows majority support for gay and lesbian equal rights - as the election result in WA last weekend shows. The Gallop Government (which introduced wide reaching gay and lesbian laws, including equal age of consent, access to the family Court, access to IVF and adoption rights), was re-elected with an increased majority.

Even the National Party (a Conservative partner to the Liberals), increased its vote and picked up an *extra* seat, at the expense of the Liberals, on a policy of SUPPORTING the existing legislation and OPPOSING any rollback of the said laws.

The shrill minority is in fact people like _mcrWhite_ who endorse discrimination and oppose equal rights.

But human rights laws must never be intoduced on the basis of population size alone. It's precisely because gay and lesbian people are a minority, that they need legislative protection from harrassment and discrimination. Few people would seriously suggest that Aboriginies (only 3% of the population) are just a noisy minority who don't deserve equal treatment under the law. Democracy is not about the tryanny of the majority, it's about how we treat all people, particularly the vulnerable.

Of course, the key point to refute the silly claims of _mcrWhite_ is this:

As Greig points out in his article, most Western and many Eastern European and Latin American countries have national laws to protect people on the basis of Sexuality.

Has this resulted in bestiality and peadophilia being given free reign and protected status in any of these countries? No, of course not.

Kelpie
PERTH

I think 'concerned citizen' missed my point. Homosexuals are a tiny minority, and homosexuality is just a lifestyle. Any attempt to cater to their cause is largely symbolic.

There are disadvantaged groups that need equal rights more urgently. Such as discrimination against the elderly in the workplace, discrimination against pregnant women in the workplace and not to mention discrimination against the disabled. Which reminds me of a case where a wheelchair bound gay man refused entry into a gay nightclub here in Melbourne, because he did'nt suit their image! Hypocrites.

There is more to life than sex, and real DISCRIMINATION to attend to.

Homosexuality is not a "lifestyle". It is a life with style. It is also a life fraught with danger - even in Australia in 2005. As a former telephone counsellor with the Gay and Lesbian Counselling Service and a gay community activist I know exactly what I'm talking about. And if Davo's is interested (probably not) he can access the Anti-Violence Project of NSW (www.avp.acon.org.au) and see reports and statistics on how gays are vilified, harassed and even murdered - purely on the basis of their sexual orientation. There are relevant links to the Attorney General's website (ie: we're not making it up).

Anti-gay discrimination is real. It is the height of ignorance and arrogance to suggest otherwise. Is being killed for being gay discrimination enough for you, Davo? I can't think of a worse form quite frankly. If you can then let me know.

Btw, if we're only a "tiny minority" stop worrying about us and stop worrying about the possibility of same-sex marriage. A "tiny minority" won't alter your heterosexual "lifestyle" one jot.

davo: Let me put this spin on one of your statements to illustrate its fatuousness: "heterosexuality is just a lifestyle. Any attempt to cater to their cause is largely symbolic."

So having a say in your partner's welfare, hospitalisation, superannuation or funeral arrangements is largely symbolic? Receiving a pension when your partner of 37 years who has died after serving their country in the armed forces is largely symbolic? Being a beneficiary of your partner's will as he/she has specifically requested is only symbolic? Being able to co-parent your partner's children is only symbolic? You might want to speak to my uncle who has been with his same-sex partner for 20 years and is still legally denied significant aspects of his relationship, to tell him that any legislative reform to redress this would only be symbolic.
I really wish some people would put their brains into gear before they take their typing to the road...

Unfortunately, it seems that the brains of most of those who are responsible for the numerous homophobic, racist, misogynist or other forms of bigoted contributions to these comments forums, ARE 'in gear'. The trouble is that gear is "reverse", i.e. they advocate winding back the clock to the good old days when it was OK to bash gays, call Aborigines "niggers", perform abortions in back alleys etc.

Try engaging your brains in a forward gear, bigots.

Morgan

What the hell are you guys talking about?

My brain is in gear. For instance, Phillip Ruddock's letter of endorsement of the Mardi Gras is definitely symbolic. I agree with Brian Greig's argument that Ruddock's support for the Mardi Gras is a farce.

Unfortunately, most people's support for Gay equality is a farce. Political posturing at its finest. So you miss out on some financial benefits, big deal. Everyone can do with extra cash. but with two incomes and no children (together), you are understandably overlooked for extra financial benefits.

Finally, many homosexuals are bigoted. Towards christianity in particular, as shown in some of these posts. Goes to show we are all bigots, just expressed in different ways, hey Morgan?

Davo, let me tell you a couple of things about myself:

(a) I'm heterosexual and male. I have children and grandchildren.

(b) I don't think I'm bigoted at all about Christianity. Like all religions, I think that underneath the myths and rituals there are many sound messages for the conduct of humans to each other. But the bottom line is that, like all religions, it was invented by people like you and me.

(c) I live way out in the bush, but I get on just fine with my Christian neighbours - except when they come doorknocking (but they're always from elsewhere anyway... people who live here know better). Progressively, I've told Seventh Day Adventists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Pentecostals and others (is Nutrimetics one of your lot?) to "piss off" whenever they appear at my door, and they've had the good manners to not return.

What the godbotherers in these forums seem inacapable of understanding is that their religion is far more accurately described as a "lifestyle choice" than innate states of being such as homosexuality, Aboriginality or even womanhood. You have to learn religion, while to be gay, Indigenous or female simply (and inexorably) requires being born. To become a Christian (or a Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist etc) requires years of indoctrination before the suppression of reason is achieved, and "faith" internalised.

To me, the prospect of Christian dogma increasing its stranglehold in our laws is only slightly less frightening than if we had somebody here arguing for Sharia law. From where I stand, they are merely two positions on a continuum of patriarchal superstition suited more to pastoral desert tribes than to the increasingly cosmopolitan society we have in Australia. We had all the pain of the Enlightenment a couple of centuries ago - let's not go back to the Dark Ages, hey?

Now that I think of it, why is it that these forums attract no evangelists for religions other than Christianity? Why don't I get Muslims or Hindus (or gays or greenies, for that matter) proselytising at my door?

Morgan

Davo is right insofar as there is bigotry within the gay community. It is deplorable that a gay man with disabilities should be refused entry to a gay venue. Not only is that incident based on prejudice, it violates anti-discrimination legislation.

Nonetheless, while many gays can be racist, sexist etc it doesn't mean that anti-gay discrimination can't be addressed. After all, women as a group should be also equally entitled to full human rights and freedom from discrimination and yet many women are also racist, sexist and so on. Why should the existence of Pauline Hanson prejudice the cause of women's rights?

Also gaybashers are not particularly interested in whether the person they assault votes Liberal and listens to Alan Jones. They simply interested in violating human rights at the expense of gays.

The point is that everyone should be entitled to human dignity and equal rights under the law and in society - no matter how imperfect they are.

Davo

With every post you make on this topic, you expose yourself further as the uninformed idiot that you are.

For you to say "What are you guys talking about?" indicates that you don't actually have any clue how lesbians and gays are discriminated against. It's not all about money, Davo... and in fact, this is probably the least of it.

Picture this: you have been with your partner for 38 years. You've shared your lives, your home, your ups and downs. Your partner served in the armed forces. Your partner dies. The Government says you can't access your partner's pension because you are the wrong gender. You lose your home - the place you lived for 38 years with your partner. You lose your memories of your life together. To me, that's pretty symbolic, but not in the way you mean it.

Another scenario: you have a child with your partner. You are not the biological parent but you raise that child as your own. Your partner dies. Let's say the child is 11 years old by this stage. You are not considered the legal parent of the child and you are not permitted to adopt because the Government says your sexuality is wrong, so the child now has no guardian and is ripped from you (the only other parent the child has ever known) and taken into state care to be given to strangers. And there's not a damn thing you can do.

Still think equal rights for gays and lesbians is symbolic in nature? If you do, you're even more of a fool than I first thought.

Well perhaps legislative reform would be appropriate if the majority of homosexual couples could actually last longer than a year.

In fact, 50% last less than one year and 68% last less than 2 years. And same sex couples make up only 0.48% of couples in Australia (2001 census). Hardly any homosexual couples get married in the Netherlands where it is legal. In Scandinavia, male to male union breakdown is 50% higher than heterosexual couples. Female to female couples it is 170% higher!

They also tend to have multiple partners at a much higher rate than their heterosexual counterparts. No wonder they get treated differently in the eyes of the law.

My question 'what the hell are you talking about?' was directed at Morgan's hysterical outburst about aboriginals and abortion, not relevant to this topic.

Davo

If you're going to use statistics, then post the source, please. In addition, let's turn the tables... nearly 50% of heterosexual marriages end within the first 7 years - shall we change legislation for the heterosexual community based on the fact that committed, long term marriages are nearly the minority in the heterosexual world? You couldn't even find it within yourself to comment on the two tragic scenarios I posted - why is that? Faced with the reality of what is happening to gays, lesbians and their families, all you can do is spew forth "statistics" that don't apply to all gays and lesbians. Where is your humanity? When are you going to see that this lack of legal recognition affects real people in a very real way? The tact you take of "it's a minority group", so who cares... is seriously flawed. Would you advocate removing rights from Aboriginals because they too, are a minority? Or people with disabilities?

If one family suffers because they don't have equal human rights, then that's one family too many - I don't care what minority they belong to - and neither should you. We all belong to a much larger majority - the human race and it is our job (yes, including you) to show compassion for our fellow man. That includes equal rights under the law.

Fascinating logic, Davo. You want to punish those 30% (by your statistics, which I find very questionable but let's roll with it anyway) of homosexual people whose same-sex relationships are successful and long-lasting by denying them even a shot at legal endorsement - condemn them to failure before they've even tried?
Has it ever crossed your mind that perhaps there's a higher breakdown of same-sex relationships precisely because they're still subject to the pressures of having their love and commitment denied at a federal (and some cases state) level, not to mention the pressure of condemnation in the political and religious arenas, family and peer rejection, discrimination in the workplace (check out what's happening in Victoria: http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2005/03/06/1110044258576.html?from=top5), the odd bashing in the street when you display affection for your partner in public - pressures you would rarely if ever have to contemplate in your heterosexual relationship?
And given that you're going with the argument of "it's such a small, trivial number of people" that we're talking about, why you should you feel so threatened by legislating for those couples anyway?
PS - Personally, I wouldn't call 5,665 same-sex marriages occuring in the Netherlands between 2001 - 2003 (http://www.hrc.org/Template.cfm?Section=Center&CONTENTID=17420&TEMPLATE=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm) "hardly any". I certainly wouldn't call the 14,700 marrying in Ontario, Canada "hardly any" either.

More bun fights - I think Mr Ruddock is reasonable in his expressionsw of support

It is the "conservative / liberal" sense of tolerance which allows us to "tolerate" the abnormal along with the normal.

Tolerance of the abnormal does not require anyone to facilitate or accommodate the abnormality, it merely requires respect for the right of co-existence.

Suggesting access to the same rights as hetrosexuals, in a normally hetrosexual society, is not asking for tolerance but full acceptance - the "normalisation" of the abnormal.

I personally, have no problem at all with gay marriages, homosexual equality to civil relationships and security regarding any other married or defacto hetrosexual couple, where a public commitment has been made and committed to.

But that is not to suggest I think homosexuality is normal - it is not - However, social diversity depends on embracing the "abnormal" and "excentic" and gays can add some flair and elegance to the social mellee - good luck to them.

Now - if you are male and can tell me what colour "teal" is - you must be gay.