Condemning Islam is easy to do from the typical Aussie Christian-centric view.

Those who can, and are willing to, equally condemn Christianity, Judaism and other religions for exactly the same crimes will make the greater difference to ensuring respect for diversity and the support for freedoms and individual rights.

Islam is not the problem, it is only a symptom of the wider disease known as religion. There is very little to differentiate Yasin from Fred Nile, but I know which one most Australians would want deported first.

David you last paragraph says it all. “However, mainstream Australia is less concerned with anti-gay violence and more worried about general security issues. And general security issues, not gay acceptance, win votes. In other words, it is better all round not to touch the subject. As usual, the gay community will have to deal with this problem on its own.”

It should be that way. I would say that the majority of Australians have no problem with gays, but they find it offensive that the gay community constantly tries to push its values on to us, against our wishes.

I have gay friends, but they are real people who live their lives within the community and contribute without whinging. They also agree with the majority of Australian people, being totally against the adoption by gays of children

This has nothing to do with being gay, but it being an unbalanced relationship. They also like me, believe that parenting should be balanced between a man and womans influence and not singles or single sex relationships. I disagree with single people being able to adopt children because of the lack of balance. It doesn't mean that gays can't be good parents, but it begins an unbalanced upbringing, just like heterosexual single parents do on the whole.

What you are doing David is trying to hijack reality and turn it into your fantasy. There is no difference between the Muslim zealots and the attitude to homosexuality and the Christan religious right, they are all terrorists in that regard and are all the same. What the gay community along with the rest of the sane community should do, is stand up and get rid of the religious morons that do all in their power to disrupt our way of life and enforce theirs.

You must be feeling terrible inadequate and confused if you have to keep pushing your empty barrow around trying to tell people it is full. You seem intelligent, why don't you use that to improve the image of your peers, rather than trying to force confrontation and degrade you current acceptance.

Yes indeed. David is a bit shrill on this one; Islams take on homosexuality is no surprise. But in an environment of suspicion and overt hostility a more measured approach to criticism is warranted - and I have long since tired of the "How dare you!" kind of defence when lifestyles, choices etc are attacked; people dare because they have a different take on things - we should learn to live with that fact and get on with life.
The Gay lobby should really take a bex and lay down for a while; less and less of us really care anymore about sexual orientation. These days it only becomes an issue when some gay individual takes offense at old prejudices being aired - and there will be those that will harbour those forever.

The Alchemist says:

"What the gay community along with the rest of the sane community should do, is stand up and get rid of the religious morons that do all in their power to disrupt our way of life and enforce theirs."

What do you think the article was about? DUH! Read it again but slowly.

And as for "forcing values" on non-gay people well, believe me I'm not particularly interested in that. I only wish Sheikh Yasin, Brian Houston and other religious extremists would return the favour. In this regard I am particularly saddened by the plight of young gay people who have to suffer religious fundamentalist households whatever their denomination. Fortunately, the organisations I have been involved in over the years have made considerable headway so it is easier for young people to come out compared with 10 or 20 years ago. In the wider scheme of things, the Hillsongs and the Yasins will be temporary nuisances that can be overcome.

David,

It is a pity that the terrorist problems have increased not only tensions between Islamics and Christians, but hypocrital fundamental laws common to both religions are being used, as you say by Islamic mullahs, to virtually abuse our homosexuals, whom our modern democracies have graciously given the rights to live in our society as normal citizens.

The sad reality is that we have America in command of our globe, with extreme right wing Christians, saying the same thing about homosexuals as certain Muslim mullahs. Indeed, it leaves political philosophers with a deep belief that for the time being to save our planet, it might be best if we locked out all religious beliefs while these terrorist problems are with us, and focused our minds on the true causes of modern terrorism, but going back to the Ten Commandents just one more time. “Thou Shall not Covet thy Neighbour’s Goods.”

In 19th century colonial terms, the Commandent surely includes hegemon and contraband, along with occupying another’s territory, as again is happening in Iraq, and as happened after WW1, with a revolt necessitating 10, 000 Iraqis having to be killed with mustard gas by the RAF, so British Petroleum could have the oil.

Talking as one going on 85 with not much time left, isn’t it about time we woke up to ourselves, and began taking many more lessons from history such as the above. Even the very coldblooded-pragmatic Churchill declared that when looking at world problems we need to look far further back than we look forward. Right back to the early Greeks, would be a good idea, the way the world is now. Yet some of our Forum contributors are calling the lessons of history, just so much twaddle and old pap.

Yes, David, I really understand what you are on about. But knowing that your gay associates would be up with it in historical knowledge and the lessons thereof, turn your resentments to help making it a more thoughtful and understanding world, which you must agree is so much needed.

George C, Bushbred, WA

Hello, 'alchemist'; you experience the opinions of gays as intrusive? Raised in a fundamentalist cult (quite legally, because forced religious observation does not constitute formal child abuse), my own experience is that unpleasant religious bigotry is extremely destructive, and demanded a 'god-given' right to much more of my time and attention than ever the creative and often inspirational invitations-to-thought of lesbian and gay activists have.
And please consider, when you assert the 'balance' of heterosexual upbringings that the overwhelming majority of domestic violence sufferers are women (it's not a balanced 50-50, I can personally assure you) - women attempting to protect their lives and sanity and their children's well-being. The harsh 'masculinities' we've promoted under patriarchy don't do much for any argument of 'balance' re: the product of heterosexuality.
Anna

Anna, I was not implying that Gays make bad parents, or that patriarchy is a better way. Quite the opposite, that form of parenting is not acceptable in this time, I believe we have evolved further than that. If there is ever a thread regarding the upbringing of children, then I am happy to discuss it with you, I don't blame people, but how we are educated. My first post was to see who would react and in what way.

I was trying to show how unbalanced things are and that by trying to just put the problem as being homophobic, you are giving those that threaten our way of life, ammunition that they can and will use to divide us as a society. If that happens, then it won't matter what you represent, just like us all, you will get the same treatment. No rights and the chop if you don't toe the religious line.

What the gay and lesbian communities fail to realise, is that they are a part of this country and their fellow sane country men will support them around the world, but get of our backs and help us work out how to stop this rapid escalation of religious war coming here.

I am not as mature as bushbred, but he is right and people should listen to those of us that have experienced what insurgent conflict can do to a society. We have a unique country, lets not let it go down the drain because of religious insanity. It is not one religion that is at fault in this case, it is all of them.

We are all lucky in this country to be able to be what we want to be, responsibly. Minorities are a part of our society that makes us unique, it is only the wacko's that want control and they come from all aspects of society, even within the gay and lesbian communities.

So lets do what we can to keep it that way, the same old victim accussations, are not helping.

The sheik is a lying hypocrite. Paradise(?) for moslem males, especially those who suicide, that is blow themselves apart with bombs and murder innocents, don't know what the downtrodden females get in paradise. But paradise for them contains 40, or so, perpetual dark eyed virgins as well as 32 "pearls". What may you ask are "pearls" - they are perpetually untouched boys. Even today islamics if they have sex with men they can be killed as homo-sexuals. Yet if they have sex with hairless, pubic wise, boys that is fine. Don't believe me then check it out on the net. numbat

Muslims have poligomy for males thus the poor cannot afford a wife.In such Muslim countries homosexuality is rampant.It is a system of hyprocracy, denial and confusion which reflects the wider problems which beseige their religion.

No one can seem to agree upon a common theme of beliefs or rules.Ask a question about what they believe and all you will get is double speak and denial.Such a confused,introverted and beseiged mentality will only bring anarchy.

We had better have the courage to face these problems now,or see them fester into social conflict beyond our wildest imagination.
It is a Muslim problem,and all sides of this present debate have to face that reality.

Once we buckle to the smallest of their demands under the threat of their potentially violent nature,we have lost the battle.

I note in Collin Mullane's post he says, "There is very little to differentiate Yasin from Fred Nile". I can say, knowing Fred Nile very well he condemns the act not the person, and would never sanction the State introducing the death penalty for persons involved in the act. His model is John 8 on the woman caught in adultery, "neither do I condemn you [to death]". He certainly does not sanction the act of adultery, but he respects the person. "Go and sin no more"! Fred has personally and financially assisted several gays who were dieng of AIDS. He holds no hostility toward the person only the action of involvement in anal sex. Shari'ah law upholds stoning women caught in adultery and the death of those who engage in anal sex. There is a marked difference with Yasin's stand compared to Fred Nile.

Islamic culture is at war with Australian society - in particular Lebanese have nothing but hatred for Australians and Australian Society.

It is not a question of international terrorism, but a question of the terror faced by Australians on the streets of our society, terror from Lebanese who hate Australians because we are Australian and 'Infidels.

In western Sydney gang rape has been used by Lebanese against young Australian girls, and this happens more than the public is aware. It has been happening for the last ten years and longer and it is only the headlines of '55 years' for Bilal Skaff, the leader of a brutal Lebanese gang rape on a young Australian girl, which brought it to light... She was raped by up to 30 Lebanese men, passed from car to car as the rapist contacted their 'cousins and friends' with SMS mobile phone messages. She was told she deserved it because she was an "Aussie slut" and that the men would rape her "Leb style" - and it is the Sheiks of Islam who have intended this, preaching that it is woman's fault as they wear 'strapless, backless' clothes. It is a culture of hate for our society and people - we are Infidels to even the moderate Muslims.

Australia needs to make sure that not one Australian girl has the chance of being gang raped by Lebanese in Australian society because she is Australian.

Australia hands such people Australian citizenship and these people are protected by Australian law... what right should such people have of our laws when they have no love for this country. It is time that citizenship meant love for this country and it is time that Australia takes back our society.

Our ancestors built this country and it is being handed to Lebanese who hate us and our society.

It is a 'clash of civilizations' of 'us versus them'!

Collin... 'religion is a disease'...= vilification.

The criticism of Islam for its anti gay stance, is a validation of our repeated criticism and scrutiny of the religion in many threads.

We (Godbotherers) are called 'intolerant, racist, divisive, moron, insane' to name a few colorful epithets raised on the flagpole at the marshalling area of 'tolerant, peaceful social progressives.'

And here we have a sample of those who are usually the ones shouting out the said epithets, being INTOLERANT of harmless Islam :)
The problem is, the death penalty for gays in Islam is just one of MANY reasons we oppose it at it's most fundamental level, which is the doctrinal, and the founder.

"Its not our law, its theQuran"..... are we seeing it yet ? Trinity.. Xena.. Garra... Giaman...Alchemist ?

I cannot figure out why Yasin is called an 'extremist' he is just being a Quranic Muslim.

The difference between evangelical Christianity and Islam is that we look to Christ as the fulfillment of the law. Islam is still living in the Mosaic age.

We see in Christs words and life, the interpretation/fulfillment of the Old Testament. While the New Testament clearly condemns homosexual behavior and acts, nowhere does it call on us to punish it IN THIS LIFE. (apart from ejection from fellowship)

Punishment for sin, is God’s perogative, at Judgement Day, punishment for normal civil/criminal offenses is for us, today. The obvious red herring is 'Will evangelical Christians seek to make Homosexual behavior illegal”? Most likely some will, others will just seek to restrain the attempts to 'legitimize' this form of behavior in the educational and legislative spheres.

We do this because of the following:

1/ Leviticus 18 lumps homosexual behavior IN WITH bestiality and incest as all being totally unacceptable to God.

2/ We know that it won't be long (and now is) before Nambla and other devients will use the 'moral relativism' of post modern society to engage in moral bracket creep for the passive acceptance of any form of behavior the fertile imagination cares to conjur up

What is the difference between Sheik Yasin's supposedly Muslim homophobia and that expressed by fundamentalist Christians? To one who subscribes to neither mythology, both expressions of sexual repression seem pretty equivalent to me.

One thing I know is that the more that religious extremists of any persuasion blather on, the less credibility they have. Sure, "Islamo-fascism's" vilification of homosexuals is reprehensible, but I find the kind of homophobic diatribe enunciated by Christian fundamentalists above just as dangerous and distasteful.

As for the openly racist comments expressed by others above, they are neither on topic nor worthy of consideration.

Some people at this forum seem to express surprise that I and others would take offense to Yasin's comments on gays because, after all, they emanate from his religious beliefs. Well, what if I routinely referred to Jewish people as "vermin" and justified it on the basis of my religious beliefs? Wouldn't that be considered just a tad bigotted? At any rate, I'm not so worried about myself but more interested in the terrible problems facing young gay Muslims who are the "meat in the sandwich" in this whole issue.

So far there have been 13 posts in 24 hours on this article. I'm fascinated that people find the topic of homosexuality so interesting. Some other articles haven't had a single posting. But flattered though I am, I do look forward to the day when homosexuality is no longer considered interesting and don't bother responding to the issue. But in the meantime I know you just can't stay away :-)

GIAMAN

put simply, the difference is, if 'he' is in power and you live under Sharia law, you will be EXECUTED if you are homosexual.

If Evangelical (as opposed to the hyper fundamentalism of Fred Phelps and company on the loooooony end of the scale) Christians are 'in power' (something we would only seek in a democratic way, and for means of 'influence' rather than control as in a 'theocratic' way)
The worst you should experience if you were a PRACTICING gay is not welcome in common fellowship with Christians. Some possible legal bariers to
a) adoption of children,
b)same sex marraige,
c)the teaching of Homosexual behavior as 'normal' in school curicula

They are far less terminal than having your thoat cut by some gloating Imam.

If you cannot see this difference as being 'stark' and far apart then I would be concerned about the value of your contribution here.

Remember, we have been living under a Judao Christian heritage for quite some time, homosexual issues have been advanced very far, and I don't see much of a 'body count' so far. And for every 'gay bashing' you care to name, I can probably name a 'harrassment by gays' event of an equal number, including the Lesbian at my wifes work who is creating havoc, hitting on any girl who she seems to like. (continually, whether they like it or not).

BOAZ_David suggests that I am vilifying religion by referring to it as a disease. That was not my intention.

I speak of religion, not as a specific church; not as a group or nation of believers; and not as the personal morals and values held by an individual.

I speak of religion in a constructed context - as a man-made system of processes and actions that one personally adopts to play out one's spirituality.

In this context I believe that religion (as opposed to spirituality) is indeed a disease - "an unhealthy condition of mind or body". Religion is, and has always been, an unholy mechanism for war, death, slavery, crimes against humanity, suppression of human rights, racial oppression etc.

Spirituality, on the hand is an integral part of the human being and should be nurtured and respected. It is everyone's right to hold such beliefs as they wish and to live their OWN life with integrity.

Sharing and discussing with willing participants is perfectly legitimate for developing one's spirituality. However, any group or organisation that creates processes and systems for enforcing such values upon individuals, especially those who do not share those beliefs, can be suitably described as a virulent disease. Politics can also be described in the same manner - as it can often be another form of religion for some.

I am not sure which definition of vilification David is using so I'll provide two:

Firstly: a common legal form within Australia is to "publicly incite hatred by threatening violence". I think it is quite clear that I am neither inciting hatred nor threatening any kind violence.

Secondly: a common language definition is "to speak ill of or try to degrade by slander, to defame". I believe, but may be incorrect, that one cannot vilify a concept, belief or pattern of thought.

If I were to suggest that Jews, Christians or Moslems are diseased I would be guilty of vilification. But to label a system (religion) that causes so much death and destruction in our world as a "disease" is, by simple language definition, completely valid.

Addendum: Indonesia, the world's largest Muslim populated country does not invoke the death penalty for homosexual activity. There are very few countries in the world that have the death penalty and not all of them are Islamic! It wasn't that long ago that our "Christian" nation dealt out long-term incarceration for acts of homosexuality.

OK folks. Let's get down to the basics.

In my career as a mental health/psychiatric nurse, I have worked with more gays than straits. And by the way, I am female and happily married.

Some of these gay people have become close friends. Even so, as a nurse I will never understand a person inserting a penis in to faeces - body contaminated refuse. In other words - pushing into sh++

But I still love my fellow men.

This is the first I've heard of Gays standing up for themselves against Muslims, and good on you all.I have been wondering whether the homosexual community were cowards or not, as one regularly sees gays attacking Christianity via floats in the Mardi Gra, yet I've never heard of an Islamic float, say of Lesbians in burqa's, naked from the neck down, on leashes held by gays dressed as Islamic clerics? Next year perhaps?

Your community must confront these sickly Islamists now, because as you say in the article, no one else will. Our leaders are weak, they say, "It's not Islam, just a fringe group". Rubbish. Islam can't be clearer on homosexuality. You are to die for it. All Muslim leaders believe this, I have personal correspondence with Keysar Trad telling me that all Muslims believe in Sharia Law.

The only bit about your article that bugged me is how you say that Christianity is the same with regard to homosexuals. As a non-religious person, I take offence at that. When have you heard Christians saying gays should be killed? The worst you get are those who say you won't be going to heaven, or can't get married in their church, or the like.

Nothing in Christianity approaches the barbarity of the Islamic religion regarding homosexuals.

Taken out of context did the Sheik say? There's that 'taqqiya' again. What a joke it is that their religion allows them to lie, cheat, steal from non-Muslims?

The word religion needs to be altered, as the connotations we in the west have is of decency, of helping the homeless, yet Islam seems to be nothing but hate & intolerance. When will it be banned?

Yes, Islamo-fascism is a threat to western freedom....Islam itself is a threat to western freedom.

If I were homosexual I would be very worried, because anyone who lives in the western suburbs will tell you, hordes of middle-eastern youth hang out at the entrance to the local Westfields, harrassing whites, especially young women.

I have seen packs of them out the front of Liverpool Westfields run up to young women walking by themselves, all offering their phone numbers, asking for sex, it's truly disgusting. Sometimes the poor girl is with her mother, but these scum are so disrepectful (although watch them all be quite when a veil walks past).

Homosexuals would probably cop this also, especially the ones that openly show it by dying their hair yellow & walking like a woman. I believe that the homosexual community needs to speak out more, because I am sick of seeing a situation where it seems that Muslims are aligned with the far left (especially on issues like war in Iraq) and that really makes me sick because Muslims are so far to the right they need a new description!

ALL Muslims believe that Sharia Law is the law of God. They wish to implement this law here and disgustingly, have even asked for it already.

How many clerics have we heard say the same things as Yassin? In particular though, a cleric by the name of Sheik Shadi, who is based in Lakemba, two years back called for Sharia Courts to be set up in Sydney so Muslims could stone homosexuals to death. The response from the gay community? Hardly a peep. Which annoys me when you consider how angry they were over John Laws comments.

As one who has delved into Islam quite a bit, it is a sickening religion which offers man nothing. Although they think that we in the west are decadent, it is Islam that allows man to kill his enemies, take many wives, it's idea of heaven is sex with virgins, it's a religion that gives into all of mans passions.

Let me make 3 things clear.
1) I oppose punishing any homosexuals for their chosen orientation. (note this does not mean we should redefine institutions or ideas to be "inclusive". Marriage has always throughout history been defined as between a man and a woman.)
2) I oppose the twisting of the term 'homophobia' to apply to anyone who thinks the act of homosexuality is immoral.
3) Homosexual acts are immoral, just as telling a lie, having an affair whilst being married, having sex outside of marriage, stealing, greed and a host of other sins. Get over it (to both those who think they should bash homosexuals and the homosexuals who cry 'homophobe' anytime anyone says that they are doing something immoral), we are all sinners.

Anal sex is something many heterosexuals do and, conversely, many gay men actually don't like anal sex. It's not wise to make assumptions regarding sexual practices about a community one obviously knows very little about (ah, but I've got a gay "friend". Isn't it funny how gay "friends" are produced in this debate to conveniently support an ignorant view?). I could ask why any woman would want a penis in her considering that organ is used for urinating. But I don't pretend to know that much about female sexuality.

In both the Koran AND the Bible you'll find material to justify the killing of gays if that is what you want to do. Christian fundamentalists, usually in America, DO argue precisely that. My argument is against religious fundamentalists and not Muslims per se. I have known Muslims who have no problem whatsoever with homosexuality. And as I pointed out, the Canterbury-Bankstown area is home to gay Muslims. Gay Muslims throw down a challenge to ALL religious fundamentalists alike simply by they're existence.

My nephew who served in Iraq stated many of the nominal male Muslims in Iraq are bisexual. They say, "Women are for babies men are for pleasure". It is these type of Muslims that ignore / violate the law of Allah the Sunni want to eradicate because they are influenced by debauched Western standards of behaviour.

The fundamentalist Muslim take this position from the ancient religion of monotheism handed down to Abraham, when Abraham,s nephew Lot chose to live in Sodom. Their opposition to the Sodomites [that gained its name from that event] when the whole city of Sodom was destroyed under burning ash and the wife of Lot was also encased in volcanic ash because she failed to flee and sympathised with the sexual behaviour of the inhabitants.

Grey could have added Christianity to his/her list of immoral deeds. It is to the more close-minded of other religions. As is Islam, Judaism or any other religion. They're all immoral. Morality or immorality is a matter of opinion at the end of day (excuse cliche). Religious types would whinge that I'm being bigoted. But they can get over it.

Homosexuality is simply a sexual orientation towards one's own sex and nothing more. It is not anal sex, a preference for techno music, the ability to do great interior designs or an aptitude for hairdressing. Sexual orientation is not a concept discussed in any religious text because it was unknown when those texts were written. In fact, religious texts are about as useful in analysing sexual orientation as they are in analysing endocrinology. This maybe why so many people get confused about the issue. To say "homosexuality is wrong" makes as much sense as saying "left-handedness is wrong".

DAvidJS you said some valuable things. BUT......

Homosexual behavior 'involves' sexual acts, and with the same gender.

Incest is 'SIMPLY' an orientation towards one's own children. No more immoral or moral than the above.. BY YOUR LOGIC.

Intercourse with willing sheep..... is JUST an orientation according to your reasoning......

I hope you are getting it by now. Don't talk to us about closed mindedness.. we simply are ORIENTED toward some very basic moral values.
Actually that's not quite right.. we recognize that withOUT such moral values as having divine authority , it doesn't really matter what you consider your 'orientation' to be towards.. even a huge rock.. the point is...it's relative and neither moral nor immoral.

SO... in the same way that a person who by their 'moral relativistic' value system who is attracted to children must remain CELIBATE in that aspect of their desires.. and just as someone who takes a liking to your dog must remain celibate.. SO... must those craving their own gender in a sexual manner.

None of us would take issue with a normal human/brotherly/ love for ones own gender.. hugging.. loving.. from the very depths... but only in the context of sexual attraction to the appropriate gender for yourself.. i.e. OPPosite.

If homosexuals are so 'loving' then they should realize that real love is of the heart...not the penis. So.. love you own gender.. love them dearly.. but dont lust for or have sex with them.

David,
"Morality or immorality is a matter of opinion at the end of day (excuse cliche)"

You don't believe that David, otherwise you wouldn't be seeking to force your own views of right and wrong on others (Why bother trying to use moral words at all?). If morality really was just a matter of opinion, then what you have been doing is kind of like arguing that people who like vanilla icecream are bad because you don't like vanilla icecream. It is nonsensical. Complaining about 'close-minded'ness is also a waste. You seem to be saying that being close-minded is bad, but if morality is just an opinion, why should your opinion matter to anyone else? What you are really saying is that you want your opinion of morality to be more important than anyone elses.

Don't get me wrong. I will defend your right to argue that your ideas of right and wrong are correct, but trying to pretend that morality is just a matter of opinion to support your case is irrational clap trap.

As for your equating same sex attraction to left-handedness. That is also rubbish. Any geneticist will tell you the same. Sexual orientation is not genetically determined. Deal with it.

Grey, if one in 12 rams is exclusively interested in mounting other rams, do you suggest they're making a lifestyle choice? Not every geneticist will tell you homosexuality isn't genetically determined. Not by a long way. Try this article http://www.boston.com/news/globe/magazine/articles/2005/08/14/what_makes_people_gay/?page=full

Homosexuality is present in all species, including homo sapiens. Within homo sapiens, homosexuality is and has been present in all societies and cultures throughout their histories. It has also been practised by members of all religions - albeit clandestinely in some cases - since their inception.

Deal with it.

I'm all for people taking up the fight against fundamentalist oppression, but it smacks of selfishness you see people taking it up only when their own camp becomes a victim of it. The case of the Iranian teenagers is an example of this, isn't it enough to condemn the practice of sharia law on the grounds that it permits husbands to smack their wives into line, or that smearing Allah could see you stoned to death, that christians are considered infidels?

"Will we see non-gay Australians... particularly Australians like John Howard... focus on the homophobia of Islamic terrorists and their apologists?"

Will we see gays speak up against fundamentalist oppression even if gays are not necessarily victims of it? Even if it means perhaps distancing themselves from the traditional leftist style leaning? I'm not holding my breath.

The author makes an interesting point - I'd never thought about Islamic fundamentalists from an anti-gay perspective before. (Going off on a tangent here) This sort of thing has gotten me thinking recently - in our multicultural society is it ok to criticise "other" people's beliefs and customs and what not when more and more of these "other" people are becoming "our" people? Previously we haven't really had to deal with it before. The Muslims are over there on the other side of the world, therefore we don't have to bother debating it, and I guess it was seen as a bit of a cheap shot to make comments about other people's cultures when they're all the way over there. But now (as was mentioned in that 60 minutes report the author mentioned) Muslims are immigrating to the West like never before in history. As more and more Muslims (and people from other cultures) are becoming part of our society, I'm starting to think (as a lefty progressive type) that it should be ok to criticise Islamic bigotry, just as we criticise Christian, extreme political (etc) bigotry.

giaman,
From my experience with animals I have never seen two bulls form an attachment for exclusive sexual pleasure while there are a majority of cows present. Bulls will only attempt to mate if they are seperated by fences from the cows. Bulls will in every case prefer an available cow, and if two bulls are present both will fight even to injury or death to mate with the cow. I do not see this happening in the gay community. Your analogy is flawed. Quote, "Homosexuality is present in all species, including homo sapiens."

Just in case you did not study human development, we have two sexes in homosapiens for procreation. That is the reason for males having a penis and a female posessing a vagina. Males will never give birth to a child from their anus. There is obviously a disoriented attitude to the real purpose of sexuality. Being gay is not a development in evolution if it is attached to the gene as some imagine it is obviously a deformed human mutation and will breed itself out of existence.

It is not linked to the gene it is an emotional choice because of damaged emotional attachments in early childhood.

Jeez Philo, haven't you ever seen cows or dogs mounting each other when they're 'horny' (pardon the pun)? Obviously this isn't reproductive behaviour, but they certainly seem like happy animals when they're at it in my paddock.

You actually raise an interesting aspect from a strictly functionalist perspective: regardless of whether or not homosexuality is genetically determined, it could easily be argued that it is 'adaptive' in populations that have outgrown sustainable levels in their environments. I wouldn't be the first person to suggest that our planet's human population has reached unsustainable proportions, and homosexuality can therefore be seen to have 'functional', or biologically and/or culturally adaptive, aspects under an evolutionary perspective.

On the other hand, perhaps such a strictly functionalist perspective is a bit limited when it comes to understanding human sexuality, particularly when rather clumsily deployed in a fundamentalist Christian argument?

Anomie,
Let me be very clear. If homosexuality was genetically determined (I.e. your genes alone make someone a homosexual), then in studying the brothers of a homosexual, 100% of identical twins would also be homosexual. Even the link you gave me admited this was not the case.

The pontifications of a boston globe journalist do not make a good basis for scientific pronouncements. Considering the research he didn't mention and the conclusions he made that were contrary to statements of the researchers whose research he quoted, perhaps you should not rely on him to justify your beliefs.

As Philo also mentioned, if there was a 'gay gene' it would be bred out of the population very quickly as it has a tremendous negative selective effect.

And before you decide that I am biased, understand that any arguments for moral status or homosexual marriage that I use are totally independent of whether homosexuality is completely genetically determined or not. It just doesn't matter to me.

What matters to me is what reality actually is, and so people that twist words for their cause or misrepresent research and avoid contrary research in pushing their agenda need to be corrected.

Forcing my views on people? Deary me. I appear to have forced people to read my article, read my postings and to argue with me. It must be terrible for them. Like the "Christians" who are forced to watch the Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras on the sidelines. How they must suffer!

This debate proves time and again morality IS a matter of opinion. I regard fundamentalist Islam as morally wrong. Fundamentalist Muslims regard homosexuality as morally wrong. Two irreconcilable views. There is no arbitrator. Morality is not like the laws of physics. Religious types can appeal to their Imaginary Friend but what we call moral or immoral will remain a set of opinions. They may be a valuable opinions but they are still opinions. Note how what we regard as wrong changes over time. Someone mentioned sex with children. In the Middle Ages, this was not regarded as immoral in itself. Richard II of England had a wife (Anne of Bohemia) who was only 9 when they married. Now we regard that as immoral.

Someone objected to the comparison of homosexuality with left-handedness. Actually, a better comparison is with heterosexuals who choose not to have children. Another refered to incest and bestiality. I treat that with the contempt I reserve for Yasin and others like him who have similar obsessions.

Now, how can I forward the Homosexual Agenda today? Decisions, decisions...

Grey
You are quite correct, there are two groups of research. Let's look at that research. The vast majority of independent research on one side, pulished in accredited independent peer reviewed journals argue that there is a definate genetic component in homosexuality.

The other research is published in non-accredited, non-peer reviewed magazines in order to persuade the lay public that something is wrong with homosexuality.

Tell Me which group of researchers do you think are the most likely to be displaying unsubstantiated data?

Here's another thing to consider. Several zoologists have noted that homosexuality is found in other species. In wild sheep, dogs, chimpanzees & even lizards. Did the lizard wake up one morning & think "I feel like being a homosexual today?" Doesn't seem likely does it? No. their acting instinctively. & if their desires are instinctive then so are ours.

Since homosexual desire is found throughout the animal kingdom & in all cultures & ages it CANNOT be merely the product of environment. There would be far too many environemnts producing the same result. It's far more likely that homosexuality like heterosexuality is genetically based. That doesn't mean that environmental facors don't play a part - just that from the time their born it's already decided which sex they'll find attractive. Now what they do about that will be influenced by a lot of factors not just biology.

Bottom line: you CANNOT change a homosexual into a heterosexual. Even with his full consent & eager partisipation. That's been shown in thousands of studies. And I'm afraid that ALL peer reviewed research supports me on this.

Back now. Made two converts.

I am surprised the issue of homosexuality as a sickness hasn't rated much of a mention - despite the fact it is not covered by Medicare nor private health insurance. Maybe because if you're trying to classify it as immoral behaviour to say it is a sickness is a contradiction. After all, the Bible specifically tells us that cancer and measles are not sins. Yet the Catholic Church does try to have it both ways - and predictably loses credibility.

The fascination with whether homosexuality is genetic or now I find amusing. Basically, I couldn't give a toss. To me, it's just life. And a very ordinary life at that. I have heard the arguments about homosexuality as being genetic and they don't ring true in my limited knowledge of biology. Nonetheless, it's interesting that people have such a fascination with homosexuality. Maybe they think if they study it hard enough it'll go away given that physical violence, psycho-therapy and "religion" haven't seemed to have worked.

David,
"Forcing my views on people? Deary me. I appear to have forced people to read my article... argue with me."
I don't believe you are really that stupid. When you make comments telling other people what they 'should' be doing, you are trying to get them to follow YOUR point of view. When you follow up with
"And as for "forcing values" on non-gay people well, believe me I'm not particularly interested in that. I only wish Sheikh Yasin, Brian Houston and other religious extremists would return the favour."
You are essentially trying to force your view on not forcing your view. I know that sounds complicated and all, but it is your view that people shouldn't force their views. Yet in wanting others to do the same and complaining in moral terms when they don't, you are trying to force your views on them. You are doing the very thing you complain about.

"This debate proves time and again morality IS a matter of opinion. I regard fundamentalist Islam as morally wrong. Fundamentalist Muslims regard homosexuality as morally wrong. Two irreconcilable views. There is no arbitrator. Morality is not like the laws of physics."
Why is morality not like the laws of physics? It certainly can't be just because people have different opinions or opinions change over time. That some time in the past some people thought the world was flat and some thought it was round did not make the world shapeless.

If morality is not objective, then it doesn't really exist, and so your complaints in moral terms is useless verbiage. You can't say 'muslims are wrong for killing gays' or 'people should condemn muslims for it' you can only say that you don't like it. The rest is just a pitiful attempt to coerce others into supporting your cause with loaded words. So how about next time, to be honest, why don't you just say that "You don't like it that muslim's kill homosexuals" instead of trying to tell other people what they 'should' do. Or is intellectual honesty not something you consider important?

Bosk,
I can tell you that infants at birth have no predesposed genetic preference about their future sexuality. Their sexual identity happens in bonding post birth during their development. Quote, "That from the time their born it's already decided which sex they'll find attractive." It is more likely today that a dominant parent, society and teasing may push young sensitive males into accepting they are really homosexual.

You are defending homosexuality as a predetermined genetic lifestyle, I have never seen any male animal developing an exclusive lifelong sexual bond with the same sex, as you are defending. Young males may desire at a moment of an erect penis to push into any warm accepting hole of the same species. Your argument is inconsistent as these animals are by natural desire hererosexual. So the behaviour is bisesual not homosexual. You do you explain beastiality? - I assume by the same argument, "They are genetically predetermined".

Quote, "Several zoologists have noted that homosexuality is found in other species. ... Did the lizard wake up one morning & think "I feel like being a homosexual today?" Doesn't seem likely does it? No. their acting instinctively. & if their desires are instinctive then so are ours. ...It's far more likely that homosexuality like heterosexuality is genetically based."

CONCLUSION:
Your observation and conclusion about being genetically based is inconsistent. They are more likely to be bisexual. I do not imagine any self respecting woman accepting any man that engages casually in anal sex with another man then with her.

DavidJS, still trying to work out how to forward that gay agenda and I presume looking for the "top 10 gay things to do today" - maybe there is a self help book for gay activists which will help ;).

Grey, "You are essentially trying to force your view on not forcing your view." - there is a difference between sticking your head through some one elses bedroom window and telling them how they can act vs calling out from your bedroom "get lost you pervert" to the person with their head through your window.

Those who want to tell David how to behave in his own home pretty much have their heads through his bedroom window and deserve to be told to get lost. If David gets really bored looking for gay things to do and starts sticking his head in your window you can give him some travel directions.

It's about boundaries.

R0bert

Here's my take on the gene argument.

Sexuality is most definately linked to gender. I conclude that because the great majority of people tend to be hetrosexual i.e. attracted to the opposite gender. Obviously there must be something instinctive at work here, you can't argue 95 % of people are attracted to the opposite sex because of environmental factors, it wasn't because of the role models they were subjected to, the bias is just too great for that to be true. And you certainly couldn't argue that sexuality is not instinctive in the animal kingdom, dogs do not go to school and watch TV, they do not see daddy fix the car and mummy cook the dinner (for sure there are environmental influences but not so great as in human society, consider that a dog could mature within a family home and never see another dog, and most will still be hetrosexual).

Now if we accept sexuality is tied to gender, and that gender itself is genetic (?), then surely sexuality is linked to your genes.

Then we can go further and consider that gender is not always certain, there are hemaphrodites and the like. If their gender is not certain and their sexuality is meant to, for the most part at least, be determined by their gender, then who are they supposed to be attracted to? Sexuality now starts to look a bit grey.

So I think sexuality is largely linked to genes and as we all know sometimes genes mutate or develop in a way for an individual that is against the norm. It could well be that those genes linked to sexuality and/or gender sometimes appear in individuals in a way that causes them to have an attraction to the same sex, you may get males with female sexuality genes and vice versa.

DavidJS, so we went from muslin hate, then through the religious spectrum. Homosexuality as a genetic thing, inherited, cultural, sociological misfits, evil doers, you name it and they put it up

Mostly it has been the religious that have tried to fit gays into a convenient category. But they forget one thing, the actions and approaches that the religious use, can easily be displayed as symptoms of mental illness. But then again, maybe the religious are genetically faulty as they don't seem to be able to say anything that is constructive and non repetitive.

Yes we should condemn islam for its attitudes towards Australian gays, but then again as I said before, we are all in the same boat cobber and thats our first priority. Making sure our boat doesn't sink from the overloading of religious cranks.

The problem is: Do we suppose that genetic mutations should be eradicated from the human gene pool, by death and that they not be allowed to reproduce offspring? According to the larest research in human genetics there is a weakening in the human genome.

The very fact that past societies have attempted to eradicate homosexuality would indicate it is not resultant from genetic breeding. It is rather a sign of social overcrowding and neglect of infants and emotional insecurity in normal human bonding.

If it is a genetic mutation then it ought to be corrected by the introduction of gene technology. If it is a moral attitude developed from social disfunction then that disfunction needs identifying and corrected. As I have stated elsewhere; I have a close friend that had no childhood bonding with the opposite sex [now 58 years old] who naturally bonds to males and was a practising homosexual before becoming a Christian, who now constantly expresses he would have loved to have had a wife and children as his brother.

Philo
How do you get from the fact that some societies persecuted homosexuals to the idea that it can't be genetic? They were prejudiced just as any group that will kill someone for being different is prejudiced. Face it philo the facts are against you. Homosexuality is, at least in part, genetic. All the research says the same thing.
By the way the research by zoologists I refered to in my last post stated that some rams prefered other rams exclusively, even when ewes were available & willing. I'm afraid your arguments don't have a leg to stand on. Genetic = natural. End of story. Homosexuality has a genetic factor & therefore it is NATURAL. Even if you can't accept it that remains the fact.
But you've never answered my question & I've asked it several times on another thread. What whould it take to convince you that you're wrong? What would you accept as proof? I'm betting that all the proof in the world is meaningless to you philo. That no matter what I show you you'll remain unconvinced.

Bosk,
Ive been reared and worked on farms for 39 years, I worked on animal research in Hawkesbury Agricultural College, never have I read so much nonsense. While breeding stock, Ive had two bulls penned from cows who engaged in such expressions, but put them with the cows and they would fight to the death or injury over a cow on heat. Their same sex behaviour was not genetic it was because they were restricted. No farmer who breeds animals would have kept a non breeder, [so the gene would become extinct] the gene was not a reoccurrent mutation. Young rams might express such in sexual play, but when full grown among the flock exhibit no such exclusive bonding. If such was the case their gene would not be transmitted to be reoccurrent in later offspring. It has become obvious you cannot follow natural logic.

Demonstrate how the homosexual gene is transmitted through a same sex relationship. If it is latent in the whole of the human genome, why does one child in a family become homosexual, and the others not since they are from the same parents? Note the placement in and sibling relationships and postnatal attitude of the parent to the infant, and the sexuality of other siblings. It is not linked to the gene, it is emotional bonding in infancy.

Philo
so what you're saying is if you haven't seen it then it doesn't exist? Read the literature. Don't dismiss something out of hand without examining the evidence. It's called the scientific method. Use it.
Why does one child in a family become a homosexual & another not? For the same reason that one child can get an inherited genetic defect & the other not. For the same reason that children from the same family can have different coloured hair & eyes.
Thank you for your reply though. I noticed that once again you NEVER answered what you would accept as evidence that you are wrong. perhaps because we both know the answer to that question. Nothing. No amount of evidence would convince you that you're wrong.
If I came with a billion points of evidence you would dismiss them out of hand as you did with this piece, merely because YOU had not seen it. Or refuse to discuss it.
Since this is the case, & I think I've demonstrated that now, I really can't see any further point in discussing this further philo.

Bosk,
Please explain:
Why persons become homosexual after having norman hetrosexual relationships and children?
Explain why some homosexuals remove the penis, when their genetic pool gave them one?
Please explain why some homosexuals have a fixation on children?
Please explain why some males and females have a sexual fixation on animals of the opposite sex?

I assume it can all be explained by normal genetic predetermined disposition!

Philo,
I think that Bosk’s point was that there is evidence (scientific and real) to suggest that homosexuality could be a genetic issue, as well as the nurture issue. Quite simple.

I do not think that either position is irrefutable and depending on the cases you claim, evidence will support either.

If this is the case, then each person who chooses (or is genetically driven) to make that choice is different. Again, quite simply.

At the end of the day, does it really matter? If a person chooses (or is genetically driven) to be homosexual, whose business is it? No one else’s. Again, quite simple.

Before you jump on the danger bandwagon, yes there are child molesters out there. They exist. That is not the general rule. Simply look at the number of homosexual men in Sydney. If they were all child molesters, the numbers the police would have to deal with would be phenomenal. I think it safe to say that most homosexuals revile child molestation as much as any other individual is.

In any case, the homosexual hurts no one – not even himself or herself. They choose a life and live it. Get that idea and you will not have a problem with them. Unless of course your religious beliefs say otherwise, in which case… well, that is another argument.

Bosk, my apologies if I misunderstood your point.

Maybe not the last post on this subject but my last post. It has been really interesting how the discussion has played out. I'm still frustrated how nobody seems interested in the issue of gay Muslims. In Sydney, not only CBD but Middle-Eastern Queers have started to challenge the idea that you can't be gay and Muslim at the same time. I don't know much about other cities and I should find out. Overseas, Lebanon and Egypt have active gay groups. Not that they don't have their problems (particularly Egypt). But now it is impossible to deny the existence of gays in the Arab and Muslim worlds. I believe the gay movement can play a part in liberalising the generally conservative Muslim subculture in Australia. But it would help if Howard and friends came to terms with their own anti-gay bigotry.

David JS, “I believe the gay movement can play a part in liberalising the generally conservative Muslim subculture in Australia.” you are either naive, or blind. You have no hope of altering the islamic approach to gays. Muslin gays choose top be muslim, christian gays choose to be Christian, their problem.

Look how muslims treat women, disgusting, look the the amount of segregation there is within their culture. Look at how much compassion they have for those that are different, exclusion and death. Not much different to how the christians were not so long ago.

Don't rely on John Howard or any politician to stand up for this country, they sole aim is to make us slaves of a political and economic dictatorship. After all, they started this war, which allows them to remove our freedoms and take more and more control of our lives without any benefit to the people..

I note that some of the religious are complaining about the fear of child molestation by gays, but the facts are, that there have been very few incidence of child rape or abuse by gays, if any in this country.

The statistical facts show that a large proportion of the child molesters, come from within the christian church.

One of my closest friends, the head of a christian church was the first to provide a spiritual union for gays in Australia, in Perth back in the 70's. I have never seen a problem with that and never will. If gays wish to live within the same fantasy as the religious, then so be it and I wish them the best.

Just remember cobber, it wouldn't matter what you were in an islamic culture, if you ain't a submissive muslim, you have no rights and maybe only death to look forward to. They do a good job of killing each other, another common fault of the religious. Good article though, got em going.

I am not sure what you mean that gays do not commit sexual acts against boys? The majority of sexual acts committed on young boys in Church schools and boys groups were homosexual acts, [not hetrosexual] many of them by celebant Priests. Most of the long term sexual abuse cases that occupied the Police and Courts were homosexual acts. Does the Church have a case to remove homosexuality from its precinct? You can be sure it has, and will do!

A lifelong bond with a concenting adult partner may be their business, but it has impacts that affect society. The Muslim community recognise that and they will deal with it in their way - death. It may be hard, but they deal with drug runners in the same way.

Quote from Reasaon, "Simply look at the number of homosexual men in Sydney. If they were all child molesters, the numbers the police would have to deal with would be phenomenal."

Reason said,."In any case, the homosexual hurts no one – not even himself or herself."

The incidence of AIDS in Sydney is the highest in the Nation and increasing and over 80% of cases is found in gay men. A huge health problem - apparently they hurt no one. How about the drain on health budget? that is 10 times higher per head than of the hetrosexual population for viral sexually transmitted disease.

As a previous post suggested,perhaps the Gay community can do an Islamic Float for us all at the next Mardi Gra.Instead of nuns being the sex slaves we could have women in the hijab.I haven't seen them do a send up of paedophile priests or ministers though,perhaps this is too contentious.

Will they have the courage to send up Islam's homophobia and hypocracy?My bet is that they won't because of the possible violent backlash and will continue to pick on easy prey,whom they know won't react violently.

If the anti religious vilification laws of Victoria come to NSW,then a few more floats will disappear.

Do we want censorship for fear fo the potentially violent nature of another group?If any religion speaks truth and is the only way to reach god, it should surely withstands the rigors of ridicule and satire.

BOAZ_David claims
If Evangelical Christians are 'in power'.
The worst you should experience
a) adoption of children,
b) same sex marriage,
c) the teaching of Homosexual behavior as 'normal' in school curricula
I suggest you check out www.pink-triangle.org to see what really happens when Christians are in power?
Christians like to claim that somehow there form of mythology is the lesser of two evils.
If you choose the lesser evil; you still end up with evil.
EVERYONE has missed the main point of the article, ie; gay Muslims caught between outrage at homophobic comments of their leaders and the racist elements of Australian society, including the queer community.
How big a role does religion and culture play in homophobia?
Whilst many atrocities can be attributed to religious & cultural beliefs; you also find western, secular, Atheists can also be vehemently homophobic.
I tend to believe that homophobia, like racism, relates to a persons experiences or lack there of.
The mob mentality can also take control of a situation, very quickly, as we have seen repeatedly throughout the history of the world. Nazi Germany is a prime (Christian) example, but there are many others.
Legislation giving queers true and full equality in all areas of life is part of the answer, but there also needs to be education and this comes through our participation or interaction with the wider community and their reciprocation.
This includes us standing up to gay hate or vilification, simply telling the world that it is wrong.
To remain silent is to agree with the oppressor.
How many times have you heard (or uttered) the words "I don't like gays, but you're OK"? Change "gays" to straights, Muslims, Christians, Jews or even New Zealanders and you start to see how wrong the quote really is. It is ignorance, they don't realise that "you" are just like any other gay man or lesbian, with all the same qualities and problems as the rest of society.
Religion may give an excuse for acts of hatred; however it is never a justification. People of conscience realise this.

Muslim political party formed in Australia, called 'BEST PARTY of ALLAH in AUSTRALIA'. They applied for registration in ACT monday, 5 September 2005.He has more than 100 members so far for the federal system (he needs 500 members).

Founder and President Kurt Kennedy, from Vietnam says he converted to Islam after reading the Qur'an.

Kennedy says that members must support the teachings of Allah and that the wants to see the laws of Allah - known in some countries as Sharia law - introduced.

"(Koranic law) isn't inconsistent with the best laws we have in Australia," Mr Kennedy told AAP. "We want leaders who believe in Allah and will legislate accordingly for the laws that Allah prefers for our personal lives."
Mr. Kurt Kennedy a 2004 candidate for the elections to the ACT Legislative Assembly. Since forming the BEST PARTY and has been recruiting members with the help of other members.

Their website and media reports
The use of Allah is interesting because most 'moderate' Muslims try and use the name 'God' to make Islam more compatible with Australia and to remove some of the feeling of differences between religions.
The website is at http://freedom.homemail.com.au/ - click on the various sections once in the site...

There are sections on
Media Release

"We acknowledge that as Australian citizens, we will abide by its civil laws and the rule of law. And as Believers in Allah we also have a commitment to the rule of Allah's laws in our personal lives", said Mr. Kennedy, "These laws are found in the Noble Qur'an and on the whole are not inconsistent with the best laws that Australian parliaments has to offer."

This is an achievable goal, as there are nearly 500,000 (and ever growing) Believers in Australia - enough to immediately elect at least four BEST PARTY members into the Australian Parliament House."
"You will not have any difficulty imagining one day, the BEST PARTY will control the majority in Parliament House".

"Membership to the BEST PARTY is free and is open to Believers and supporters of Believers, even if they are non-Believers.

Constitution "Best Party Of Allah"

"You [Believers] are the BEST of peoples ever raised up for mankind; you enjoin al-ma'ruf (i.e. the doing of good deeds) and forbid al-munkar (polytheism, disbelief and bad deeds), and you believe in Allah."

'Membership'
Believers and non-believers.

You may join the Best Party if you are a citizen of any age and you:

(a) are Believer;

(b) become Believer declare to two Life Members: "I declare there is no deity except Allah; and I declare Muhammad is a Prophet of Allah"; or

(c) you declare to at least two Life Members that:

you are interested in learning what is in the Noble Qur'an;
you are interested in how it can be applied to society in practice.

All Believers are entitled to become Life Members who can revoke their membership at will.

Those who are not yet Believers can become Ordinary Members who can revoke their membership at will and such membership is terminable at the discretion of the Secretary.

All members are committed to strive in the path of Allah by continuous campaigning and contesting in all available elections.

Members can be expelled if they "shows a lack of confidence in: (a) the clear messages of the Noble Qur'an; (b) the unity of Allah; or (c) the prophethood of Muhammad.

On Australian Government Policies they say
1. There is no such thing as terrorism created by men. There are just people killing each other for fear, greed and revenge. See how Iraq and Afghanistan were invaded and occupied because they were weak countries with substantial resources? The invaders gave the reason for invasion based on a fear of emerging Islamic militancy but were actually based on greed for oil and greed for markets.
They quote the Qur'an - for example....

WE SHALL CAST TERROR INTO THE HEARTS OF THOSE WHO DISBELIEVE, BECAUSE THEY JOINED OTHERS IN WORSHIP WITH ALLAH, FOR WHICH HE HAD SENT NO AUTHORITY; THEIR ABODE WILL BE THE FIRE AND HOW EVIL IS THE ABODE OF THE ZALIMUN (POLYTHEISTS AND WRONG�DOERS). [Chapter 003 - AL-IMRÂN. Verse 151.

I thought this discussion was about homosexuality.... not politics…

I was trying to work out the difference between 'BEST PARTY of ALLAH in AUSTRALIA' & "FRED NILE'S CHRISTIAN DEMOCRATS" or "FAMILY FIRST". I really couldn't see any until it finally dawned on me.
'BEST PARTY of ALLAH in AUSTRALIA' will never get preferences from the Liberals or ALP.
Religious parties should always be placed last on the ballot paper. They are the same as One Nation, although at least One Nation was honest regarding their policies. Relgious parties also have a lot more money than One Nation.
KEEP OUR PARLIAMENTS PROGRESSIVE & SECULAR (KOPPS)
Now getting back to the point:
GAY MUSLIMS being oppressed and devalued by their so called leaders and a racist Australian society.
I realise it's hard for the religious to focus on anythng other than their knees, but please; give it a try.

The intention to introduce shari'ah law into Australia will place as the punishment of homosexual acts - death. I have not heard Family First or The Christian Democratic Party suggest or support death as the penalty for homosexuality. The New Testament does not support death for sinners, as many former worshippers of Juno [homosexual acts were part of his worship] became followers of Christ.