Clearly this is author's attempt to further the homosexual agenda using our young-uns to spread their EVIL, UN-CHRISTIAN and, dare I say it, UN-AUSTRALIAN perverted ways. This GODLESS-SODOMITE conspiracy must be stopped before His wrath bears down upon us and smites Australia with 10 plagues and worldwide flood. It is written in the Good Book I tell ya. We must stop homosexuality from being shoved down our throats - before it is too late!

David JS is absolutely right (in both senses of that term!), but, for those of non-christian or less Biblically unrestrained belief, there are far more pragmatic & logical reasons for not promoting such a lifestyle choice.

HIV/AIDs as well as more mundane things like hepatitis & syphyllis...up & up they go.

Reality Check.

I think they should lower the age of consent for gay sex to 5. That way, they can have a special episode on playschool. Make sure they are toilet trained first, though.

Good article David But as you can see and I'm sure there will be more to come the hate filled GB will roll out their usual trash. John 1 has some excellent advice for the GB’s 2:15 and John 2 1:10 offers some more I implore you all to follow this advice so the rest of us can get on with having a real discussion.

Some discrimination against homosexuals is necessary. Obviously not the gay bashing variety, but in terms of absolute equality with heterosexuals in the legal sense, equality should not happen.

Homosexuality is a high risk lifestyle. It is abnormal for most of us. And before you mention the plight of Aboriginals, you cannot experiment with Aboriginality the same way you can with homosexuality. You cannot recruit non-Aboriginals to be Aboriginals. But you can influence heterosexuals to flirt with homosexuality.

That is a scary scenario. Some social stigma is necessary to discourage people from partaking in a dangerous lifestyle.

As Kenny points out, it seems to be the God Botherer's key to heaven is to oppress and discriminate throughout their life on earth. Religion is a choice - sexuality is not. Sexuality is an innate quality and Kinsey's research proves that it is indeed a minority of humans who go through life being 100% heterosexual in either attraction or behaviour.

A quick check on world HIV statistics proves that the vast majority of people who have lived with HIV/AIDS have been heterosexual. HIV is spread through unprotected vaginal or anal sex (anal sex is a common hetero sexual activity especially in countries where condom use is suppressed). HIV is also easily transmitted throughout sharing of dirty intravenous syringes. Condoms used properly with water based lube are totally safe for protecting against HIV. Needle exchanges which provide new fits combined with health advice and support also minimise the risk of HIV transmission (Australia is a shining example).

"Homosexuality" is not a lifestyle. People who are same sex attracted are NOT inherently at high risk, and the major risk factors we face are (1) the loudly voiced oppression of bigots, (2) the lack of acceptance by most religions and (3) the lack of acceptance, protection and support offered by educational facilities (at all levels).

When Queensland Premier Peter Beattie chaired the 1990 PCJC enquiry into "homosexual law reform" he writes in the Report that they accepted expert evidence that no higher age should be set for any gender, sexuality or sexual activity - because to do so would have NO EFFECT on reducing the incidence of sexual activity and would most likely only act to impede or prevent safe sex education. It happened in NSW when all sex between men was illegal before 18, and it's happening right now in QLD where anal intercourse is illegal until 18. A truly equal age of consent ensures that equal protection and support is a possibility for all youth. Law reform will still rely on the various institutions and individuals to actually practice equity – but law reform is the necessary first step.

Equal Rights Activist
I’m sorry, I just couldn’t go past your post for all the errors! I can’t believe there are still people who think like you!

Let’s take a little look at what you said:
“Religion is a choice - sexuality is not.” Wrong. There is not one shred of credible evidence that supports your statement of sexuality being ‘innate’. You might want to believe that you were ‘born that way’, but that would honestly be delusional.
And as for your reference to Kinsey… please! Besides the fact that he did the majority of his research based on prison inmates, it is also now clear that his work was fraudulent and criminal, sadly, involving the sexual abuse of hundreds of children. Kinsey also proclaimed that medical and scientific data find no reason to prohibit incest or adult-child sex. Still want to quote from his "research"??

It is widely accepted and documented that 98% of society readily identify themselves as heterosexual. Not the other way around.

Your check on HIV stats MUST have been a ‘quick’ one, because the actual situation is that 85% of AIDS cases involve homosexuals. (National Centre in HIV Epidemiology and Clinical Research, Australian HIV Surveillance Update, 10/2 (April 1994))

Did you make up your information about condoms being ‘totally safe’ in protecting against HIV too? Check out this link which covers a UNAIDS report: “United Nations Report says Condoms Fail to Protect against AIDS 10% of the Time” http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2003/jun/03062303.html

As to the ‘homosexual lifestyle’, let me quote from another well-known contributor on this forum: “lifestyle n : "a manner of living that reflects the person's values and attitudes." Homosexuals live according to their values and attitudes ie. they have "sex" with other men (or boys), and they are extremely promiscuous. That is their lifestyle.” For more information on all other errors please check out this paper (previously posted by Aslan) and learn the true situation. http://www.kulikovskyonline.net/homosexuality.doc

Cheers,

Tammi expresses the classic myopic attitudes of right-wing fundamentalist Christians – and I know there are a hell of lot of them in the world. Naturally she refers to fundamentalist websites as resources. Let me refute her misrepresentations:

(1)What shred of credible evidence dooes Tammi have to suggest that sexuality is not innate? I Know from my own personal experience and from discussion with the hundreds of gay, bisexual, lesbian AND heterosexual persons I’ve known through 11 years of presenting Queer Radio http://www.queerradio.org in Brisbane, that sexuality is innate. You can chose to lie, conceal or behave in a manner that pleases others, but that does change your true sexual orientation.

(2)My reference to the distinguished work of Dr Kinsey was to ”attraction or behaviour” and not to “identity”. Most self-identifying heterosexuals will have feelings of attraction for the opposite sex, or will have a same-sex sexual encounter to orgasm during their lifetimes – and that’s perfectly OK.

(3)Australia may be an island, but I was clearly referring to the global experience of HIV - and research shows a maximum of 10% of infections are due to male-to-male sex.

(4)Condoms when “USED PROPERLY with water based lube” are exceedingly safe. A great site with honest info for proper use is at http://www.avert.org/usecond.htm and they have a page with a history of condoms and the truth about risk of failure http://www.avert.org/condoms.htm .

(5)Same-sex attracted people are no more promiscuous than heterosexuals, I’m sorry to disappoint you. Like myself, and most of my queer friends choose to be faithful to their one partner – it’s not called “monogamy” because the law prevents us from getting married – instead it’s called “love” – you’ve heard of love no doubt, why not practice it?.

(6)For full details of the Queensland’s Age of Consent and the dire need for Sodomy Law Reform go to my own site at http://www.queerradio.org/AgeOfConsent.htm .

equal rights activist

There is a big difference between having some form of same sex attraction and reaching orgasm with someone of the same sex.
A big difference.

Other than that you make some good points

To all the "Christians" who continue to condemn homosexuality based on Scripture, I ask you to consider the following.

"If a man is found lying with a woman married to a husband, then both of them shall die - the man that lay with the woman, and the woman; so that you shall put evil away from Israel. If a young woman who is betrothed to a husband, and a young man finds her in the city and lies with her, then you shall bring them both to the city, and you shall stone them to death with stones, the young woman because she did not cry out in the city, and the man because he humbled a neighbour's wife; so you shall put the evil from among you."

"And David took more concubines and wives from Jerusalem, after he had come from Hebron. Also, more sons and daughters were born to David."

"New Rehoboam loved Maachah the grandaughter of Absolom more than all his wives and concubines, and begot 28 sons and 60 daughters."


Does anybody believe these Scriptures should be written into society today? Should we take the Bible literally and stone adulterers to death? Taken at face value they seem to support men having multiple wives and mistresses and other customs common during biblical times but are completely foreign to Judeo-Christian values today. There are many others eg women who are having their period should not venture into town, mixed fabrics should never be worn... the list goes on.

Why is it so easy for Christians to dismiss these many condemning Scriptures as not relevant today, while proclaiming that a handful of others condemn homosexuality for all times

I've learnt an important lesson here. Never use irony (or any sort of humour) when posting to your own article. Religious fundamentalists don't seem to get it.

But thanks to those who have been countering the usual obsessive bilge from "Christians". No doubt they won't stop debating the issue on this forum but unfortunately for them, just as in the real world, they are not getting things their own way.

I just want to address two points for the moment - homosexuality being a "choice". So what if it is? People choose to be Christians, people choose to marry, people choose many things. As I am gay, I know a lot more about the reality of same-sex sexual feelings than some of these arrogant fundamentalists. And I can tell you I didn't choose my sexual orientation as you would a red or a blue shirt. But that's beside the point.

Secondly, one big risk factor re: HIV/AIDS (in global terms) is being a woman. This is because of women's second class status in most countries. So, maybe people should stop "choosing" to be women perhaps? (I'm being ironic here).

DavidJS - have appreciated all your posts the ironic and the serious. While basically het myself - and I know I didn't concsiously choose; I'm simply wired that way, I wish the 'more righteous than thou' brigade would ask themselves if they chose their sexual orientation - but that requires self reflection, not common among those who would tell others what to do with their bodies. Another quality that appears to be lacking amongst the conservative contingent is empathy - I once asked Aslan if he could imagine being gay. The response was hysterical - I think he thought I was asking him to cut off his most significant appendage.

Back to the topic, I don't understand why the age of consent should be different for gays - clearly this is as discriminative as is banning marriage for gays. We are all human beings.

Ringtail, interestingly enough the lesbian age of consent hasn't been discussed. Barnett's retrograde policy only related to the gay male age of consent. And the likes of Aslan never seem to consider lesbians in their world view. But then, homophobia has always been related to appalling attitudes towards women. Just look at countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia - gays and women both cop the sharp end of the sword.

DavidJS - lesbianism is frequently a favourite het male fantasy - I guess many men do not feel so threatened by female homosexuality. However, I believe that both sexes require some sort of legal protection and while 16 is too young for some I guess there has to be some sort of legal line drawn - yet I also believe that every case should be considered on its own merits. I have thought back to my wild and youthful days and realise that a partner or 2 of mine could have been guilty of incest - its all very subjective.

I'd just like to add a note of appreciation to DavidJS, both for his article and for his posts to these forums - which are often veritable fonts of reason in these very dry arguments. He is correct that humour and irony are lost on the godbotherers, homophobes and misogynists.

I have come to the conclusion that some of the most prolific posters to these forums are very sad people who project their obsessions onto others in cyberspace for whatever reason - perhaps to seek affirmation in being noticed for a change?

Love your work, DavidJS.

Morgan :D

Please note a correction to the first point in my previous post - I meant to write: "You can choose to lie, conceal or behave in a manner that pleases others, but that does NOT change your true sexual orientation."

I agree that there's a world of difference between same-sex attraction and same-sex sexual activity. HIV/AIDS and Sexual Health Services face a particular challenge in reaching and educating "Men who have sex with men" (MSM's)- all those men who would never identify as gay or bisexual and therefore will never read any gay press. MSM's may also be in committed, loving opposite sex relationships and the reason they do sex with men may not be primarily about attraction (e.g. it could just be the desire to quickly. satisfyingly and anonymously get their rocks off with another person).

DavidJS rightly points out that being a woman is in itself a major risk factor for HIV/AIDS, especially in countries where condom use is religiously or culturally suppressed.

Without getting into an orgy of mutual backslapping, I'd like to thank those heterosexual supporters of legal recognition for same-sex relationships. After all, it's not a zero-sum game. Same-sex marriage in the Netherlands, Belgium or wherever has not lead to the diminution of traditional marriage. It just means gay men and lesbians in those countries now have security insofar as their relationships are fully supported by legislation.

Opponents of same-sex marriage love to talk of "marriage" as this abstract and almost unearthly concept but rarely want to discuss actual marriages. Why? Because real marriages are less affected by gay rights and much more affected by economic upheaval, downsizing, health problems and poverty. But of course the Howard Government and their supporters don't like to consider those things (because they're partly to blame) and prefer to divert attention towards gay rights.

Some people add two and two together to get five. What makes you think all critics of homosexuality are christian? I've got a bible that a 'christian' bought for me, except it is gathering dust. I read the first two pages and got bored. I am not a christian.

Back to the topic, Colin Barnett should of copied the tact of Gary Singer (Melbourne Deputy Lord Mayor)- and not tell the public about his anti-gay policies. Gary Singer did'nt tell anyone he wanted a 'gay' Melbourne, untill after he was elected.

I personally think homosexuals are very sad, Morgan. Just up the road from where I live, is a public toilet. This public toilet is opposite a primary school. Men from all around Melbourne converge on this public toilet, for gay sex. I found out through a seven year old, who was obviously frightened with what he saw, and I lodged a complaint. There was a public outcry (well locally). There is now security, and loiterers will be charged. So, I am making a difference to this world, however small.

Gays should be more responsible.

What's even sadder, davo, is that many of those men would identify as 'heterosexual', and are often married with kids. There's nothing much sadder than a closet homosexual, except perhaps one who gets their jollies by having sex in a public toilet.

I've often wondered what sort of world it would be where people didn't feel ashamed of their sexuality - to the point where it is repressed to the point of denial and a furtive grope in a public dunny is its only form of expression.

What have homosexuals done to you, davo, that you deny their right to exist?

Morgan

Since many prominent Australians are openly homosexual, one should question whether they are really an oppressed minority. There are more homosexuals with access to priviledge and power than say, Aboriginals. Bob Brown, Michael Kirby and Kerryn Phelps to name a few. Public expression denied? I think not.

The reason why the issues surrounding homosexuality enter the public domain so frequently is because homosexuals have access to influence. So the equal opportunity Skidmore strives for, is mere fine tuning.

Skidmore likes ironies. Life is full of ironies, I work in a small business for a boss who is openly gay. He knows my position: sex is for procreation (& pleasurable so people have sex). He disagress. Somehow, we actually get along. Probably because he is discreet about his homosexuality, unlike some.

davo, if sex is only for procreation does that mean post menopausal women, infertile men,.... in fact, unless you're trying to get pregnant all people, hetero as well as homo, should refrain from sex? You really think that'll ever happen? Very sad little world you must live in. I feel sorry for your boss - he must have the patience of a saint.

With your big ban on sex - I guess the age of consent isn't even a question for you.

Davo is partly correct in terms of the struggle for gay rights in Australia being directed towards "fine tuning". Mind you, "fine tuning" involves a bit more than finding 2Day FM on the dial. It requires changing a huge amount of legislation around relationship recognition, aged care, parenting, adoption and more (see www.glrl.org.au). Nonetheless, gays are immensely better off than a decade ago. Personally, I would say I'm better off than many heterosexual women in my age and economic bracket. We've come a long way, baby.

That said, the plight of gays in rural and remote areas is still oppressive. And what about gay Indigenous people? Didn't think about them, did you? Not to mention the situation of gays in conservative Muslim families. Can you imagine being a lesbian in such a family where you are expected to marry and have children?

I am relatively privileged being a white gay male living in Sydney in a job working with other gays. However, I am mindful of the statistics relating to assault and murder for being gay (see avp.acon.org.au) and my relatively comfortable existence is because of what activists achieved before me. And I am not about to give up on the quest for full equality before the law.

Keep it up DavidJS, you are needed on websites like this, to repeatedly and tirelessly fight the good fight for tolerance and equality before the law in Australia.

Glad you liked the article, Grace. It was a bit of a rush job but as the issue was topical I had to do it in a hurry.

I'm surprised nobody as yet has taken up the issue of why young women's sexuality seems to be so undervalued by the WA Liberals. To me, that was one of the most shocking things. Not only a gay/straight double standard but a male/female one.

Organized Crime and the Gay Lobby

The orgy of mutual backslapping associated with the Prostitution Reform Bill (being passed) in New Zealand, featured lots of gay activists, brothel-keepers and no working prostitutes. The gay lobby allied itself to pimps and criminal gangs.

Gay marriage is used as a tool to progress a raft of other policies related to prostitution, pornography, public sex, lowering of age of consent etc. At this stage of the global campaigning game everybody has informants in the other camps.

We used 'planted' informants in Australia and New Zealand. Gay people wanting to walk the steps of a public building to register a civic union are irrelevant to the issues. I work on queer agenda issues only to oppose NAMBLA style legislation.

Litigating the Boy Scouts of America, or attacking the institution of marriage, are important to pro-paedophile activism. The NAMBLA philosophy has to destroy moral and ethical orthodoxy enshrined in what might be described as inherited establishment.

Similarly, (some) feminists decided that pornography and prostitution were good issues to shatter perspectives focused on protection. To be protected, one has to be 'weaker' and feminism does not really like the basic ideas of female & weak in association.

I have listened to bizarre narratives on 'temple prostitution' and the emotional intimacy and rewards associated with pornography etc. which would have a percentile support base in the general female population of zero. All of which is to miss the point.

The average gay marriage campaign is rarely solely about gay marriage. It is often about kicking out the sides of the building so it can be reconstructed with values which are the antithesis of legitimate morality and liberty.

The issue is often about NAMBLA style legislation, public sex, prostitution, drugs reform, access to very young sexual partners, and to progress these ideas they need to attack 'Victorian values', 'Christianity' or 'conservatives'.

HIV and Censorship

Talking about HIV and Homosexuality in the same breath can get a teacher in the UK or the USA fired. Suggesting that having unprotected sex outside of a monogamous relationship may increase the level of risk, would be viewed in much of the USA as homophobic. Certain sexual practices increase the risk of exposure. The epidemic did not arrive in Britain for example because of the Anglican Communion or the Conservative Party. The HIV issue has moved on. Drugs, prostitution, all add to the spread of the epidemic. Young people are at risk because they are more vulnerable than people who are older. So whatever the risk sector, it can be made more dangerous if young people are involved. Many young boys involved in high risk sex are not gay and are doing it because they are exploited. Countries with low ages of consent obviously attract sex predators from neighbouring countries. Countries which do not enforce laws of one kind or another also attract sex tourists.

I cannot BELIEVE people can still believe that homosexuality is a 'chosen lifestyle' rather than a innate sexual orientation - that, for some unknown reason, homosexuals have 'chosen' to become oppressed and ridiculed by society. Think RATIONALLY people. Who would CHOOSE such persecution?

It positively sickens me that people are still condemning homosexuals and their lifestyles, complaining that they're 'unsafe' and 'abnormal'. Why should you care? You're obviously not homosexuals yourselves, so you're not at any risk from these 'unsafe' practices (although, it has been shown that countless homosexuals are involved in monogomous relationships...but, well, who cares, right?). And 'abnormal'? Well, i hate to tell you this, but homosexuals undoubtedly see your heterosexual practices as a little 'abnormal' for them also. Just because the majority of people do one thing doesn't make that thing right.

Yes, HIV/AIDS, hepatitis & syphyllis are problems among homosexuals but, of course, heterosexuals are exempt from such diseases right? Wake up people.

Discrimmination is NOT 'necessary' towards homosexuals - any inequality among humans, whether based on race, gender, age, or sexual orientation is wrong.

Grow up, and treat others as you would like to be treated

The same innate sexual orientation does not stop many of them giving HIV to their wives and partners.

Why does so much of gay advocacy focus on promoting prostitution and lowering the age of consent to 14, 12 or whatever