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.