Great piece your right there is no rational reason for the stance of the far right, but these people are not known for their rational thinking let alone compassion and tolerance for views other then their own.

Banning same-sex civil unions is as discriminatory as paying women 66% of the male wage which was enshrined in law until 1974. Both laws put the parties being discriminated against at severe economic disadvantage and are plain unfair.

If you want to ban same sex civil unions because a marriage is between a man and a woman for the purpose of producing little Australians then perhaps you ought to make divorce and adultery illegal for people with progeny.

The main ignorance being displayed in this article is the knowledge of our Creator. What next. Will a man or woman who think they love (lust) after their dog get equal rights? Thank God for a Government who shows some sense of morality. We need to feel sorry for people caught in this depravity not to sanction it.

“Fair minded Australians” believe that homosexual couples should have their twisted relationships protected by law, do they? There must be a very wide gap between what this character calls fair minded and what the majority of Australians call fair minded; unless, of course, he thinks that most Australians are not fair minded. He certainly thinks that the Governor-General and the Howard Government have got away with “abusing” their power. How fanciful!

“Now the hopes of fair-minded Australians turn to state governments to create laws which formalise the equal value and contribution of citizens in same-sex relationships.”

What nonsense! Most Australians have more important things to think about than the perversions of a few: the price of petrol, interest rates, childcare and IR laws, to name a few. Weirdos are very low on the 1-10 list of Australians.
“Time tells us it (the Victorian government) did the right thing as nobody questions those laws today.” Nobody is game to publicly question anything the left wing Victorian dictatorship does for fear of being prosecuted under its draconian anti-discrimination laws that protect all sort of nutters in that sad State.

“Legally recognised same-sex marriages are coming”, crows Wilkinson. So what’s he moaning about some might ask. He should also give some thought to just how long normal peoples’ patience will last as he and his kind push the boundaries of decency and common sense.

If same-sex, so called couples, “desire to be treated like everyone else”, they should start acting like everyone else

I still find it hard to understand how any one can consider same sex relationships "twisted" - the quality of any relationship is measured by more than what people do with one anothers genitals - or other body parts for that matter;- I get the distinct sense those who have a dislike for homosexuals keep on focusing on the nature of the sex act when sex really forms a pretty small part of any relationship - important sure - but even if one spends a large part of ones days shagging ones brains out or the brains of another consenting adult - it still doesn't amount to much.

For some it is true the one mans meat is another mans poison but clearly there are those who see another mans meat as a tasty morsel indeed - and lets not leave out those females who lust after the female form - so what I say.

The laws will change in due course and very little will happen - the world will not end - people will not all of a sudden feel the urge to become gay - we will continue to breed.

The Episcopalians seem to think homosexuality is fine and dandy - they even think women are the equal of men - so God botherers seem some what divided on the issue as wel

Christian religion doesn't have the monopoly on morality as their mouth pieces would like us to believe. Australian law has a secular foundation and using christian religion to argue against granting rights against those currently denied it is dangerous. What next, criminalise divorce? And what a simplistic and moronic argument about legal recognition of same-sex couples leading to marrying dogs.. because as we all know dogs currently have legal standing in our society and can sign a marriage certificate! And besides if you're worried about this potential (though false) sliperry slope about marrying dogs - Don't worry, we won't let you marry your dog.

I have no objections as such to civil union legislation. However the Federal Constitution gives the power to legislate on marriage to the Federal Parliament, and any legislation it enacts, (particularly the amendment that defines a marriage as a union between a man and a woman) will prevail over any state legislation by virtue of section 109. The Federal Parliament is fully entitled to assert that it has fully occupied the field of legislation on this subject, making legislation by any other body otiose.

I therfore consider it futile for this question to be brought up at any level below the Federal Parliament. The ACT Government (really the ACT municipal council) was stupid to enact the law it did, as the result was inevitable.

I love ignorance and stupidity, as the comments of Leigh highlight. Fair minded Australians believe in equality, justice and human rights.

For the entire time that the Federal Government has had control of both houses - they have abused their power, and there is nothing fanciful in that. IR laws, Immigration etc etc.

Yes, most Australians have other things to think about, but more than you think Leigh, are listening and seeing that we are being victimised and discriminated against - and we are not preverted. We simply want the same rights as everyone else, and for you to consider me and the many other same sex attracted people as abnormal is both defamatory and vile.

and yes, we should have the same rights as everyone else, because we ARE like everyone else, and we behave like everyone else. We work, we pay tax, we give to the community, we are upstadning citizens. Get your head out of your bible and wake up

Mr Wilkinson

You have my sympathy. However, on this very rare occasion John Howard got it right. Maybe his next “port of call” should be the gay mardigra. One thing that still amazes me in life, is why people who are bent in such ways, anticipate an outcome of legitimacy by law, for their illegitimate acts, which are, of course, opposed to social norms.

Surprise surprise some lines are drawn as ever. One the one side those who wish to see everyone treated fairly and those that don't. It's funny that a religious movement that say's it teachers love always seem to be preaching hate. As for their views on marriage well they change in the wind like the rest of the values. They will lose this battle in the long run after all didn’t their first pope say marriage it’s self was bad and to avoid it if you have the strength of will?

Leigh, Runner, i cant really think of an eloquent way of putting it so lets just say you disgust me. It is attitudes like yours that make the world a nasty, sometimes unhappy place to be in.

With people in the world like you, why would anyone choose to be gay?

Maybe one day someone close to you will suffer this discrimination and you can get an idea the pain that it can cause

It is very simple.

A tolerant society will recognise the expectations and desires of same sex individuals to pursue their hearts and have their commitments to one another to be represented as a "couple" through a publicly recognised and legally enshrined union, similar to but not the same as marriage.

However, that same tolerant society would recognise the patent difference to hetrosexual couples and the sexual abnormality of same sex couples.

A tolerant society would accept a same sex union is a matter for the two participants to decide upon and "enjoy" as individuals.

A tolerant society would recognise that a same sex union, which cannot issue forth with children, must never be viewed as an acceptable union for the adoption or fostering of the children as substitutes for those thay cannot have through hetrosexual means.

Let two cognitive individuals pursue the lifestyle of their adult choice but we must extend common sense to protect the vulnerable and impressionable members of society from "abnormalities" wherever and whenever possible.

The article says, "When there are no rational grounds..." but there are quite rational grounds. Heterasexual and homosexual are two very different things and marriage was and is intended for man and woman.And the rearing of their progeny.
Homosexuals delight in throwing their different behaviours in the faces of hetero's then shrilly claim they are the same .
Once they have achieved a victory, then they move onto the next claim which if denied will be injurious ,discriminating ect ect.
God only knows where they would stop, perhaps making it compulsory.
Once the wedge is driven in deep enough then all the other "different" claims will come, polygamy cannot be far away and really weird practices cannot be discriminated against. Open for one, open for all. Welcome to the strange new world where anything goes and nothing satisfies.

what is it with this belief that gay people 'throw it everyones faces'?

is it because your only exposure to gay people has been 'queer eye for the straight guy' and the mardi gras?

I have a few a gay friends and I have learnt that 90% of the time you wont even know if someone is gay unless they tell you.

Seriously guys, find something more important to get worked up about.

I'm fed up with the sanctimonius attitude and ridiculous arguments of people who rail against civil registration for same sex couples.

It's very easy to sit back in the smug and comfortable majority, and insist on rightness and dominance over a marginalised group. How utterly cowardly you are. Why don't you look to your own soul and your own behaviour?

Nobody is able to give clear reasons why heterosexual marriage would be in any way damaged by allowing civil unions - without resorting to the irrelevent Old Testament arguments from a religion of 3000 year old goat-herders. Well guess what - the earth aint flat, either.

Justice, compassion and humanity will prevail against your hatred. It already has in other parts of the world, and it will here too.

Wilkinson says, “Gay marriage is a question only for the Federal parliament, and not for debate in Victoria.” As far as same-sex unions are is concerned, by defining marriage as being between a man and a woman, the Commonwealth has vacated the field. This means that the states are now at liberty to create a same-sex marriage without conflicting with the Commonwealth.

The Greens have a Bill before the Tasmanian parliament to introduce same-sex marriages there (see http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=3352 - uncharacteristically, Leigh refrained from commenting on this article, though no doubt he and his intolerant ilk have been frothing at the mouth about it since).

Nevertheless, as Wilkinson acknowledges, the states can never deliver the same rights for same-sex couples:

First, the most odious discrimination takes place in the federal jurisdiction.

Second, state-based reforms will inevitably differ from state to state, meaning that rights in some states will not be available in others.

The states (SA is a shameful exception) have already removed most instances of discrimination against same-sex couples. However same-sex couples will never be equal until the reforms carry through to the Commonwealth.

Peterpan,

As you use “we”, I assume that you are homosexual. Perhaps you would be kind enough to explain how it is ‘normal’, as you claim, to have sexual relations with a person of the same sex? I am a non-religious person, so perhaps I’ve got the science mixed up? How can you claim that you are like everyone else? What percentage of the Australian public, do you think, sympathises with your behaviour and believes that you are being victimised.

Here is your chance. Perhaps you might be able explain why my belief that you and other homosexuals are abnormal, is “both defamatory and vile” – i.e. why am I a vile defamor?

Don’t be shy. I guarantee to read and consider what you have to say. You have revealed that you are a homosexual, and I am one of your detractors.

Here, on OLO,you have a chance to prove me wrong.

Sexuality, religion, race, colour, creed, are all tools of conservative governments let's face it that's our choice, conservative, or more conservative. These labels are used to control us, as the union movement has said in this country for a hundred years, the workers united will never be defeated, which is why we have these labels to divide us.

It never ceases to amaze me that many can't accept an opinion other than their own without spilling out hatred. The fact that one believes the act of sodomy is unnatural does not make someone a nazi. To sanction every form of depravity might make someone feel self righteous but it certainly does not help towards a healthy society.

I have known very nice people who cheat on their wives and have even been convicted of child abuse. It is quite possible to like the person but hate what they do ( and certainly not sanction it). I personally know and like some people who practice homosexuality. I don't like what they do.

Leigh
I'm not not Pan or a homosexual but allow Me to respond to your question. You ask Pan to show you how homosexuals are "normal". It depends what you mean by the term "normal"! If you mean something that the majority do then you're quite right, homosexuality isn't "normal" in that sense. Neither are left-handed people or people with red hair. Are we to stop them getting married because they are not following the norm?

Ah you say but that's different. They are born that way & anyone born a particular way [like left-handed people] are a part of nature & therefore normal. Homosexuals are born that way too. Just like heterosexuals. The latest research has shown that homosexuality is found in in almost every single animal species on Earth. Are we to suppose that lizards woke up one day & thought "Hmmm, i feel like being gay today :)" Sort of beggars belief doesn't it? Or are we to suppose that animals acting on instinct are suddenly abnormal & unnatural :) That would be idiotic wouldn't it?

My point is this. It's foolishness to discriminate against someone merely because of the way they were born. They can no more change their sexuality than you can change yours. Therefore if it's "normal" for you to fancy women because you were born that way then it's "normal" for homosexuals to fancy their own sex because of the way they were born. Seems simple doesn't it?

My partner and I are 22 years old, have been in a wonderful relationship for 3½ years, and plan to spend the rest of our lives together. We have the unconditional support of both our families, but not the law. I don't understand why our love is considered such a threat to others.

Runner claims our love and commitment is "depraved". Wrong. It is normal and natural for us, just as heterosexual love is normal for him.

He then asks, “What next?", and suggests that “dog marriage” will soon be legal. Aside from displaying a fundamental ignorance of the feelings of same-sex couples and demeaning my love for my partner, this is a perfect example of “slippery slope” argumentation: claiming one thing will lead to another, without establishing any logical connection between the two.

Runner also argues that gay marriage undermines a sense of morality. Not true. To ignore loving same-sex couples, to make their love and commitment invisible, and to deny them a whole swathe of rights enjoyed by heterosexual couples - that's what's immoral.

Moreover, same-sex couples who happen to have children are currently being punished (eg. in Medicare and tax rebates). The denial of legal protection of their families creates an obvious insecurity for all involved. This, as former Family Court judge Alastair Nicholson points out, amounts to cruelty to children.

Leigh argues that if same-sex couples want equal rights, they should "start acting like everyone else". My partner and I live in the outer-suburbs, we both work, pay taxes, take the dog for walks, buy groceries: all the things that other couples do. We have never been to Mardi Gras and I doubt we ever will. Haven’t we “earned” our rights already?

Plerdsus claims that marriage is Federal power, not a state one. True. But civil unions are not marriage. There is a clear legal distinction. A State can enact Civil Union laws that make no references whatsoever to marriage. And, if the laws did conflict, the High Court could simply strike them down.

Jonathan Wilkinson is right: it's time for civil unions for Victoria.

I feel the need respond to the baseless and ill-informed assertions by "Diver Dan" and "Mickijo".

Firstly, Dan claims gay people have his "sympathy". We are not looking for sympathy. We simply want equal rights and protection under the law.

I am in a perfectly happy, healthy and fulfilling relationship with my same-sex partner. We have a rewarding life, and plan to live together until we are wrinkly and old.

Contrary to his assertion, John Howard did not get it right. He arrogantly rode roughshod over an independently elected legislature, and in the process, undermined the democratic rights of all ACT citizens and denied fairness to thousands of same-sex couples.

Dan then argues that gay marriage "legitimises" our love. That's not true: our love is already legitimate. And in case he didn't know, gay sex has also been legal (in Victoria) for over 25 years.

He is also wrong to claim that gay relationships are "opposed to social norms". The recent Australian Survey of Social Attitudes found that two-thirds of the population accept same-sex relationships. It seems that only Dan's homophobic attitudes violate social norms.

"Mickijo" argues that marriage was "intended for man and woman". Interestingly, marriage was also intended as a financial transaction, allowing a husband to buy his wife as property. Thankfully, marriage laws have since changed.

He then argues that marriage is about "progeny". The obvious question, then, is: Shouldn’t we then deny marriage to older and infertile couples? And aside from this, you cannot stop same-sex couples having children. Marriage would provide their families with legal protection and security.

As for polygamy, it is a totally different question. Gay marriage leads no faster to polygamy than heterosexual marriage does. Same-sex love perfectly reflects everything that is fundamental to marriage: love, commitment, support and intimacy. Why not allow it?

I am utterly hetrosexual. I've been married and have children.
I have no problem with Homosexual Unions. Go for it. Legislate for them BUT don't refer or allude to them in any way as marriages... for they can never be that. Now let's all take a dose of reality here. Homosexual Unions unlike Marriages cannot result in Issue. Facts are facts and marriage in our society recognises the ultimate aim of marriage is to produce and nurture the next generation.

That opinion is not bigoted, discrimitory or even illiberal. It just recognises facts.

Whether Homosexual Unions attract the same property, workplace rights etc as marriage is another matter. That to me is the only point that needs discussion. I have a view and it is a very liberal one.



nor are Homosexual Unions

Australia 2004

111,000 hetrosexual marriages.

52,747 hetrosexual divorces

Kenny says: "No rational reason not to have same sex marraiges" etc

Kenny, sorry, you are outright WRONG... and here are is the reasoning.

1/ Same sex marraige is abnormal. fact.
2/ Homosexual behavior is condemned along with INCEST AND BESTIALITY in the Old Testament.
3/ Homosexual behavior is condemned outright in Romans 1 in the New Testament
4/ Ok.. so your not religious, then forget 2 and 3, and lets jump straight to 4, which is: By the same reasoning you cannot deny Polygamous relationships, multi partner (3some 4some) marraiges.
And this will lead to the total breakdown of our social fabric. NO you say ? Well guess what. I don't plan on giving ANYone the chance to show me I was right, and if that means using my democratic vote and social/political activism on a grand scale to achieve it, then so be it.

JK says

"Interestingly, marriage was also intended as a financial transaction, allowing a husband to buy his wife as property."

JK...I paid 3 buffalo's, $200 and a set of false teeth for Granny for my wife, but I assure you, it is not about 'buying' a person. All you demonstrate with that little outburst is your lack of cultural understanding.

The gay lobby and its spokespeople are simimlar to the "Islamic lobby"
"We are peaceful people, ours is a religion of peace"

"We are loving people with rights, we just want the same as everyone else"

"Man boy sexual relationships can be very positive experiences" NAMBLA
Then they point to various cultural icons to justify this.

and so it goes on.

... all boiling down to "MAKE_IT_UP_AS_YOU_GO" morality and values.

Onya John H. ! and lets never forget, this is a cultural/social war as well as a spiritual one.

A society without a foundation will drift like the shafted Titanic, and have the same outcome.

David. You live by the bible, the majority live by reality. You may find solace of your being in life by living by the bible. With respect its a book, just a book. No ones knows who wrote it, even yourself cannot name the author. I as a person who has loved and adored someone of the same sex as myself, for thirty years of a wonderful life together. I ask you, would you deny us the right of being, of who we are, would you deny us the right of security of our relationship, that you enjoy, without hinderance or comment that we have not. We do not expect you to understand, as you do not understand who wrote that book. We ask you to accept that there are others in life, other than yourself, as your book tells you.Love is never wrong.

A few facts, first. 1. Repeated surveys show that 70% or thereabouts of Australian adults think that homosexual relations between consenting adults should not be made illegal. But there is no connection between what majorities think and what is right, (apart from arguments about democracy that start with the equal significance of all rational beings).
2. There is no connection between what is natural and what is what is morally right. Standing on you head, running on a treadmill, writing comments on a web log are all unnatural. Aggressive reactions to anxiety, the fight or flee response, selfish grabbing and wolfing food are all natural. Yet they are morally wrong.
3. The notion of normality has various senses. If what is meant is actions that follow moral noms, then you cannot show that something is wrong by first showing that it is abnormal, since you need to show that is wrong in order to show that it is abnormal. If abnormality is taken to be a matter of psychological illness, then homosexuality does not qualify as abnormal. If what is normal is a mater of statistics, then we are all abnormal in multiple ways. We are all members of minorities—even you, Leigh. There is no connection between the way the average person happens to be and what ought or ought no to be done.
4. The Bible contains far too many moral, factual and logical blunders for it to be treated as providing a definitive account of morality. St Paul’s position on homosexual activities in Romans contains all three kinds of mistake. To get a decent argument, you can't start with the Bible, since you must first show that the relevant passage is correct.

5. There is no such thing as the Christian view of sexual morality. There are multiple views, and have been for many centuries. St Augustine’s view was not the same as that of St Thomas Aquinas’s. More generally, there is no single New Testament view of morality—the gospels differ from each other and from St Paul.
6. Marriage has not been anything like the same institution over all time, nor over the Christian era. Old Testament views of the obligations of marriage are different from those of the New Testament.
7. The notion that marriage is civil institution is not new. It as adopted by the Lollards, and much later, by the Chartists.

Blah blah blah. 'No rational grounds'? 'Same rights'?

What a load of pap.

Heterosexual marriage is an institution thousands of years old and all we have is a ridiculously tiny minority of people who want to redefine it based on the flawed notion that it is wrong to discriminate on this topic.

The government gives benefits to those who are married for many rational reasons, not because it is a human right. Things like the simple fact that heterosexual marriage is the best way to raise families and so it should be encouraged. This is why everyone has restrictions on who they can and can't marry.

So why all this hoopla if only a tiny minority of homosexuals even want to get married? Why the need to redefine marriage as some pitifully deficient institution as being simply about what someone wants. This is the sort of bankrupt definition that leads logically to polgyamy and stupid notions of people marrying pets, themselves, their children or any other such idiocy. And yes, these are the sort of idiocies we are already seeing in our more 'enlightened' friends overseas.

Let's face it, the only 'rational' grounds for granting governmental benefits of marriage to same sex couples is that people are under the misguided notion that they get to decide what is right and wrong. This moral relativism is irrational nonsense, and so ultimately, it is the misguided people such as John Wilkinson who are being irrational.

Grey
What can I say except what a load of old cobblers.

Marriage is thousands of years old. You are quite correct. So are homosexual marriages. They were known in ancient Greece, ancient Rome, among several tribes in Africa, Australia & among the Amerindians. Their societies weren't destroyed by it. Hmm I wonder why? According to you after they adopted such practices it must have been inevitable.

Next you assert that allowing homosexual marriages will inevitably lead to people marrying dogs. Garbage. Spain allows homosexual marriages, so does Denmark. The rest of western Europe have had homosexual unions recognised by the state for decades. Haven't had a single person marry their dog, cat or even horse. :D Why not Grey? According to you it's innevitable.

Answer: It's no such thing.
But for those who worry about such things here's an easy answer. Keep marriage as a union of a man & a woman.
Civil unions will be defined as the union of consenting adult humans. There you go. No animals need apply, or kids.

Your final point is that this question of homosexual marriages only arose from relativism. Garbage! I'm not a relativist & I'm for it. My motivations are little things like justice & truth. Maybe you've heard of them?

Alan Grey your intemperate rant about moral relativism only thinly disguises your belief that you should “get to decide what is right and wrong” – you and no-one else.

Furthermore, you are prepared to resort to the most underhand tricks to push this view, such as knowingly fabricating the lies and illogicalities you have given us here.

1. No-one wanted to re-define marriage until our federal Government went ahead and did it two years ago. The existing definition of marriage actually allowed for same-sex unions, but in the first instance of an Australian government removing a human right, our political leaders chose to exclude us from the right to marry.

2. Polygamy is not a consequence of same-sex marriage. It has never been, and never will be (I’m presuming this is what you were referring to when you added inaccuracy to intemperance by writing “polgyamy”). The only contemporary instance of someone marrying a pet (http://snipurl.com/s5nd) was in a country where same-sex unions are not recognised. Same-sex marriages haven’t pushed the Netherlands or Spain onto your slippery slope, nor any other countries.

Peddling these lies, you conveniently forget that modern marriage requires informed consent, which is not available from animals or children. No advocates of same-sex marriage have argued that the requirement for informed consent be abandoned.

3. The claim that “moral relativism is irrational nonsense” is particularly offensive, coming from someone who relies so heavily on the slippery slope fallacy (http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/ss.htm). No-one here is arguing for moral relativism. Many here are arguing that valuing human rights requires us to provide same-sex attracted human beings with the same opportunities as everyone else.

It just requires a little human compassion, Alan. Try it.

The whole argument could have been averted if enough Australian people believed in God.

When you do believe in God you don't need legislations to accommodate your perversions. You accept God promises, threats, and plans for his creation.

But alas that is not the case anymore. Society is taking the role of amoral and immoral education replacing God’s Eternal Word with pieces of legislations.

What next? Ménage a trois marriages perhaps?

Those who don't see why their perversion is criticised (by the majority I dare to think) have lost the ability to identify "good and bad". Thy blame religion, beliefs and head of states, well everyone but themselves.

Have you thought about young children in our society? How can one teach them values and morals if perversions of all sort is acceptable, deemed “normal”and even legal around them?

I watched in horror the other night how 14 year old kids are having babies just to get the $3,000 government handout. What morals did they pick from society? Did they give a second thought about the life and future of their offspring?

Sorry - I cannot sympathise with the homosexual lobby - the ramifications of legalising their behaviour is enormous. I love Australia too much to watch her deteriorate as a result of minorities demands.

JohnK,

You do all of the normal things except one. And that is the big one. Males and females are different for good reason – procreation.

A small number of people are born with mixed up hormones; these people act differently from a very early age, long before they even sense that they are different from their peers. Even with these tragic cases, abnormal sexual activity does not necessarily ensue.

But, it beggars belief that the number of people now coming out of the woodwork, taking up same-sex partnerships and demanding ‘equality’ of recognition with normal relationships can all share the same problem with those poor devils.

Deliberate homosexual/lesbian behaviour is abominable; equally reprehensible are the attempts of otherwise intelligent and sane people who seek to legitimise same sex relationships in law.

Religious beliefs, political beliefs, and all the usual furphies spat about by same-sexers and apologists, ignore the fact that every human being has the ability to make up his or her own mind about right and wrong. In common with most radical minorities, this group shows contempt and hate for the majority.

Someone referred to a survey which apparently found that two thirds of the Australian public “accepted” homosexuality. Two thirds of the population probably accept many things because they are there, and they are too complacent and/or afraid of disagreeing with any trendy, politically correct rubbish, no matter how gross. It doesn’t mean that they like the particular thing or approve of it. The only real say people have is in electoral polls, and they generally punish politicians who move radically away from what they accept as ‘right’. The ACT Chief Minister has yet to face this test after his outrageous proposal. Fortunately, the Federal Government acted properly, and legally, in quashing the legislation.

Misguided decriminalisation of homosexuality will never be overturned, but no decent-thinking person should stand by and allow it to be actually encouraged by mischievous politicians, groups and individuals misusing the concept of “rights” and “equality” to get their way

Bosk, please try and stick to what I actually said as opposed to misrepresenting my position. I know that it is a common tactic amongst your type as it is easier to make stuff up than discuss things rationally, but try and stick to what I said, not your own fantasy world.

Marriage was always heterosexual. There were certainly homosexual relationships back then. As for whether their societies were destroyed by it, that is a lot harder to say. Rome's decadence clearly played a huge part in it's downfall.

But then again Bosk, you are putting words in my mouth. I never anything was inevitable. Perhaps you have trouble understanding simple logic. It seems that is the case by your pitiful comments. Either that or you are willfully dishonest. Your call really.

Lets try it again, and this time I will try and restrict it to smaller words so you can follow. The same logic that is used for justifying homosexual marriage can be used for justifying polygamy. Even homosexual activists have admitted this is the case.

As a clear example, you definition of a civil union doesn't exclude polygamy. And why would you discriminate against those who are paedosexuals? Isn't that just another orientation? Maybe they are 'born' that way too and as you said earlier "It's foolishness to discriminate against someone merely because of the way they were born". (The complete lack of scientific evidence for this in both homosexuality and paedophilia is staggering. Considering the many people who have changed their orientation, this hypothesis is falsified - Your latest research comment is a joke right?)

As for relativism, you certainly sound like a relativist to me. You may try to dress it up with nice sounding words, but what foundation do you have for deciding what is right or wrong? Why is it 'just' to encourage people to harm each other?

To me this is a subject that I could write a thousand words on, background: 50 y.o. married with a child hetrosexual Catholic male. View, the Bible is open to interpretation on this subject, we have Christian homosexuals we have Christian homophobics, my life experience is this, I Love all God's ceations, whether they be my ilk or not, God has placed everyone and everything on Earth for a reason, that reason is not persecusion.
I met a lady 10 years ago, who I thought was a lovely person, so began a 10 year friendship, as the friendship progressed I discovered she was gay, I didn't turn away from her, instead I have included her as part of my extended family. To my wife and I she is a valued and trusted friend, and will remain so for the foreseeable future.
I reserve my fury for serial killers, child molesters and other horrific anti-social behaviours. My friend is "normal" whatever that is, in every other way except her sexual preference. We don't burn witches at the stake anymore, and as far as I am concerned we should not discriminate against those who are born with homosexual preference any more than we should someone who is born blind.

If we are to be moralistic, do we condem the churches because of the child abuse perpertrated against children, in my view it is stupid to condem gay people, and refuse to recognise their relationships in law, whilst similtaeneously not rising again peodphilia, extra marital affairs and other breaches of supposed morality.

I dislike hypocrisy in any form, so whilst the above is accepted as just part of life, I will remain a faithfull friend to my homosexual mate, and any other homosexuals for that matter, they are not interested sexually in me, so why should I discriminate?

Those who are opposed to civil unions for adult, mutually consenting same sex human couples seem to fall into various categories.

1.Religious. Prove that what you believe, or what it says in your favourite book, is God's will. Or accept that your opinion is unsubstantiated conjecture.

2. Those who "don't like what they allegedly do". Do you approve of everything that heterosexuals may or not do sexually? Bear in mind that a lot of heterosexual sex can't produce children either. Would you like to see some heterosexual practices banned, or at least officially disapproved of?

3. Those who claim that what they believe is "natural", or it's always been this way therefore it should always remain this way. This is also conjecture.

4. The "slippery slope" theorists. Let's draw an analogy. Let's say that two roads in my area currently have a maximum speed limit of 70kph. Because of various aspects, there is a campaign to have one of them increased to 80kph and the other reduced to 60kph. The slippery slope people may oppose these measures on the grounds that if one is increased to 80, then the agitation will continue until it is increased to 150. On the other hand, the other one will eventually be reduced to 30kph.

The reason this will not happen is that each one will be assessed strictly on known facts and [hopefully] nothing else will be taken into consideration.

There is no logical reason why same sex couples should be denied a civil union, something which the rest of us take for granted. I have no axe to grind on this. As far as I am aware, I am totally heterosexual [if this is physically/psychologically possible].

As for the religious people who would try to force us all to accept some things and deny us all other things, just to suit their unsubstantiated agendas, then I don't wonder that so many of us retain our spirituality, but don't want any involvement with organised religion.

Really it is confusing.

Gate Watching

A woman arrived at the Gates of Heaven. While she was waiting for Saint Peter to greet her, she peeked through the gates. She saw a beautiful banquet table. Sitting all around were her parents and all the other people she had loved and who had died before her.

They saw her and began calling greetings to her "Hello - How are you! We've been waiting for you! Good to see you."

When Saint Peter came by, the woman said to him, "This is such a wonderful place! How do I get in?"

"You have to spell a word," Saint Peter told her.

"Which word?" the woman asked.

"Love."

The woman correctly spelled "Love" and Saint Peter welcomed her into Heaven.

About a year later, Saint Peter came to the woman and asked her to watch the Gates of Heaven for him that day. While the woman was guarding the Gates of Heaven, her husband arrived.

"I'm surprised to see you," the woman said. "How have you been?"

"Oh, I've been doing pretty well since you died," her husband told her. "I married the beautiful young nurse who took care of you while you were ill. And then I won the multi-state lottery. I sold the little house you and I lived in and bought a huge mansion and my wife and I traveled all around the world. We were on vacation in Cancun and I went water skiing today. I fell and hit my head, and here I am. What a bummer! How do I get in?"

"You have to spell a word," the woman told him.

"Which word?" her husband asked.

"Czechoslovakia."

Rex,
I couldn't agree more, homosexual couples should be recognised in law, politically we take the taxes they pay, the effort they give to build this nation, as far as I am concerned you can't have it both ways, either don't accept the taxes and effort, or give them what is rightfully theirs, if the government can't bring itself to call it marriage, fine, call it an official union, call it anything, but do it. Warren Entch MP for Cairns {Liberal} agrees with this approach. Sadly his party don't.

I am much divided on this issue. So I’m not going to rant and rave about what I think is right or wrong. Instead, I’m going to give the Conservatives a couple of things to think about…

1. If gay couples can’t have some sort of legally recognised union (I’m not necessarily endorsing full-blown marriage), then, when they adopt children, there is less legal and financial stability for the child, particularly in the event of a separation.

What’s that I hear you say? “Gay couples shouldn’t be adopting children because they can’t provide the balance of both the male and female role-models?”

Well…maybe so. But would you prefer parentless children stay in an orphanage with NO role-model at all, and potentially suffer the sexual abuse they often encounter in orphanages?

Do you honestly think it is better for children to be sexually abused during their childhood in an orphanage with no one to guide them during those precious years than it is for them to be adopted by a gay couple, who are quite capable and willing to provide a safe and loving home for these children?

I didn’t think so.

2. This one’s for the Religious-Right…

I hear you harp on about how much of an abomination of God homosexuality is, yet you remain strangely quiet when your wealthy fellow Christians destroy the livelihoods of ordinary people and society in general through their incessant pursuit for larger profits.

OK. This isn’t so relevant in Australia, but take a look at your counter-parts in the U.S. Most of the filthy rich corporate big-wigs in America claim to be Christian and you all pat them on the back for their success while completely ignoring their blatant breaches of what The Bible preaches (i.e. caring for those in need). Instead you attack homosexuals for their lifestyle, which, let’s face it, doesn’t hurt anyone else.

The Christian-Right are so hell-bent on bagging gays when their own kind are committing far bigger sins than homosexuals will ever be guilty of.

The Christian-Right have no perspective – Let’s hope God does…

SHONGA,

“50 y.o. married with a child heterosexual Catholic male” doesn’t make you a Christian more than sleeping in your garage will make you a car.

Yes there are Christians who have homosexual tendencies – but if they are practicing homosexual they cannot call themselves Christians... unless they truly repent.

The bible is very clear on that; and is not open to interpretation like you were led to believe. All sins are abhorrent to God; there is no difference between pedophilia, rape, pre-marital sex, adultery, theft, cheating on tax returns…

With God there is no room for hypocrisy. God hates sin.

What would you have done if you discovered that after x years of marriage your wife or child was gay?

No we don’t burn witches at the stake anymore but that doesn’t mean they should not be given the opportunity to repent and sin no more.

There is a vast difference between compassion and acceptance of sinful behaviour. God loves his creation but hates their disobedience.

Homosexuality is a flagrant disobedience to God. Putting selfish desires before obedience to God’s laws.

As for your last comment: “…you can't have it both ways, either don't accept the taxes and effort, or give them what is rightfully theirs,…” I think those are separate matters. Paying taxes is a citizen duty in a democratic society, living an immoral sinful life is harmful to self and to society and therefore NOT a citizen right.

Wait a minute, I have heard all these arguements from another forum title, from the same people with not one change of thread or view. I always said that I am more than happy for my gay friends to get married, and I hope they invite my children to their weddings too.

I also said that this is civil union, not marriage, so we keep the Church out of this, and keep this out of the Church. I mentioned that if you are not a consenting adult gay couple wanting to have a civil union based on commitment and love, then it is none of you freakin business anyway.

You can hate them in the privacy of your own Churches of hate, but let the innocent couples commit their love to eacher, not to wear it on their sleave, not to make a spectacle, not to shove it down anyone's neck and make a big deal about it. Just leave them alone and stop this bullying. Any form of bullying to any minority group is sickening in a country that pretends to be a liberal democracy. The gay couples just want their own lives in a commitment of love. At least they have a foundation for a life.

As to the "practicing homosexual", that is a hillarious phrase, if you think it is like playing a clarinet, you will never get it right.

They are borne with it dum dum, no practice is needed.

BTW. If one of my kids told be they were gay, I would hug them and make me promise one thing. Please do not leave home until you are 21. A protective parent, I don't want to interfer, I just want to be there for them, not spying, not looking, just being there if they need me. I know full well that it aint easy for gay kids left abandoned by hateful parents, they leave them vulnerable to vultures who prey on their innocence.

Kippy

I hear you.

RESPONSE.

The deepest love, is that of the heart, not the penis/anal orifice or Lesbian equivalent.

While men can experience something resembling male female sex, females cannot unless they invest in 'strap on' accessories. (which a Lesbian woman at my wifes work raves about) which suggests that females prefer/need 'male' equipment.

You can love and adore someone of the same sex, I DO ALSO.... but I don't have any desire for SEX with them. Take out the sex, and you are free to love at the deepest level anyone on this planet.

I won't try to go into the psyhology of initiation/re-inforcement/ orientation,etc, but lets just say there are many things in life which we might agree that people have an 'orientation' to, but we outlaw many of them and for good reason.

No matter how much they try to persuade us that their orientation is 'valid, legitimate,ok, not harmful, enjoyable, fulfilling and natural (to them) we still do not accept certain 'orientations' as acceptable in public life.

Man and woman can actually live without sex, its not the end of the world. sure we go through periods of high desire, but they pass, and we can discover many wonderful aspects of life apart from sex.

The issue at the heart of all this for us is this.

Romans 1
"Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

Now.. this relates to only ONE thing... Homosexual SEX.

'Un-natural'
'Inflamed with lust'
'Indecent'

Would you expect me to justify Paedophilia, Incest or Bestiality on the basis that X % of the community felt it was their 'natural orientation' ?

Religion has nothing to do with the campaign for same-sex unions. We are seeking access to the same rights as everyone else, nothing more. If a religious group wants to have nothing to do with it, fine. However they don’t have a mandate to meddle in the civil rights of those who subscribe to different beliefs.

It’s a very simple pact – I won’t meddle with your rights if you don’t meddle with mine.

Further, sex has nothing to do with the campaign for same-sex unions. Recognition of loving relationships, years of nurturing and caring for a partner, honest commitments to shared joys and tribulations. That’s what it’s about. Yes we have them too, and they deserve to be recognised and valued.

Civilised people can sit down with another couple without wondering when they last had sex and who was on top. Conversely, those who can’t lift their minds out of their pants think only of sexual practices when they think of same-sex couples.

If I bothered to think about particular correspondents’ sexual practices, the images that came to mind wouldn’t be at all edifying. But like most well-adjusted people, my mind just doesn’t go in those dunny-brained directions.

It scares the crap out of me that there are people like BOAZ walking around in this country. I might pass one of them in the street without realising how close I had come to a cesspit of prejudice and spite.

JPW2040. Thanks for your response to the holier than thou Boaz. I would add for the benefit of understanding, for Boaz and his mates.

To marry or have a civil union, you must sign the register, binding that contract between two people. Animals are unable to write, they can't even make a cross. However if Boaz and his mates are into that sort of thinking, we are definately keeping our cat in doors and safe!

What a surprise, reasoned arguments on one side and unbalanced rants and god-bothering on the other. It seems that those who would deny gay people the rights that everyone else has rely on the following (pissweak) arguments;

1. The Pauline Hanson argument - "I just don't like it. It's not normal. It's not natural". Except it is normal, and it is natural. What this argument really boils down to is "I am a bigot and the fact that some people are different from me upsets me"

2. The Dusty Old Book of Antiquated Morals argument, ie god says its wrong, so it is. This is great for those who are unable to work out what is right and wrong for themselves (small children, religious fundamentalists) but irrelevant for everybody else.

3. The Social Collapse argument, ie if gay people can have civil unions, all remaining heterosexual marriages will break down and society will degenerate into an orgiastic free for all with people marrying dogs and what not. This is just plain stupid - why should what gay people do affect what other married people do? How many people would be less committed to their relationship just because gay people can recognise theirs?. This argument can also be referred to as "The Desperate Raising of Irrelevant and Illogical arguments argument".

4. The Marriage is Only for Producing Children argument. Oh please, should we forbid anyone who is unwilling/unable to produce children from getting married? What a joke.

Pathetic nonsense all.. conservative zealots have had a lot of success in imposing your particular views on everyone else in recent years, but you have misread the public mood on this one. Civil unions will happen, no matter how much bible bashing and fear mongering you do. So tough luck

I wouldn't bother arguing with Christians on this.

You can make as much sense as you like but at the end of the day, the way they view the world is that their beliefs are THE TRUTH, you just haven't seen that yet. Having been brought-up in a Christian household I can vouch for this.

Their argument about social collapse is nullified by their corporative CEO view of Jesus (going back to one of my points above (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=4598#45354)). Pat Robertson is a good example of this.

When the topic of corporate corruption is raised on this forum, not one of them is there to preach how wrong it is or quote The Bible to demonstrate the evil of it.

They should put the passion of their beliefs to better use for much more larger and legitimate problems. Maybe then, the idea of a God will have more relevance to us all and they can be true “fishers of men”.

”No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and money.” - Matthew 6:24

Grey
Yes I admit it. I did misrepresent your views but not intentionally. You see I assumed that you were arguing logically. Silly me.

Your argument seems to be that if we allow homosexual marriages then some people MIGHT want to use the same arguments to marry their pets. Well that’s the myth that the fundies are peddling now is it? Here’s the reality.

1st logical point. When you say that something can happen you’ve said NOTHING! Lots of things could happen but who says they will? Who says their even likely to happen? Our government might decide to pave our streets with gold. It can happen but the odds are so against it I won’t hold my breath. Your argument is merely the same. Just alarmist garbage I’m afraid.

2nd logical point. Several countries have allowed same sex marriage [NOT civil unions but MARRIAGE] - The Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Canada, South Africa, and the U.S. state of Massachusetts & you know NOT ONE of them has experience anyone wanting to marry any animal! So why would it happen here if it didn’t in all those countries? Your argument is just illogical fundy garbage.

3rd Logical Point. Same sex marriage has occured in the past. To quote the wikipedia: “Evidence of same-sex MARRIAGE in antiquity is plentiful. The practice was outlawed in 342 AD, though it is believed to have continued until the late Middle Ages.” & “Same-sex MARRIAGE has been documented in many societies that were not subject to Christian influence.”
Check it out for yourself : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions
So your statement that marriage was ALWAYS between a man & a woman is so much baseless rubbish. Next time do some research Grey.

Now as to the basis of my ethics. You accuse me of being a relativist. Why? Because I disagree with you? Actually the basis of my ethics are reason & philosophy. I’ll address the fundy misquotes of scripture in my next post.

At the heart of this debate, is the question of what kind of society we want. Personally, I would like the ideal family arrangement to be given a higher social standing than any alternative.

It is a fact that children with a mother and father are better off than those who do not. Marriage, has evolved as an institution to protect the children. Unfortunately, recent years has seen marriage has been degraded to a point where it is now commonly a temporary arrangement, rather than a life-long commitment. Gay marriage or civil unions denigrate the ideal family arrangement even further.

Homosexuals cannot claim persecution or oppression in todays society. Prominent homosexuals in Australian society prove they are able to take part in society, like any heterosexual person can. So all this talk about "fairness", "equal rights" and "discrimination" is laughable.

To top it off, homosexual relationships statistically don't last anyway compared to heterosexual relationships. So lets divorce ourselves from this issue!

Oh c'mon Boaz, this is like talking to log. You go back to the same lines again and again like a parrot on crack. You refuse leave it alone. What is wrong with you? Are you really so full of fear?

Most gay people I know are not Christian and never want to be. Most Christians I know are not gay and never want to be. This is Civil Union in the legal system, not marraige under the eyes of God in Church. So be it.

You talk the talk but do you walk the walk?

Why can't you just see that two consenting adults of the same gender commit their love to each other, well away from your life and your belief systems. No one wants you to accept them. No one wants you to like them. No one is rubbing it in your face. Rubbing and shoving is your job as a bible basher.

They just want you to bloody well stop bullying them with your bible bashing and leave them alone! You just don't get it, and you never will.

Your statements about lesbians and strap-ons are stupid. Mate, get a life, and stop being offensive to women. Lesbians don't all want penises. Even if they did, what does this have to do with you and your life?

There are many expressions of love, many of which don't even look sexual at all. Sometimes it is a suttle as a shoulder to cry on. A warm and friendly face welcoming you home. Someone affirming them that in the face of an unfair would, someone loves them.

Gay people do NOT want sex with their pets, children, or their Ikea furniture either, you really do have an X rated imagination.

Civil Union does not set a precidence for perversion, it sets a precidence for commitment and love in the legal system, well away from the domain of the Christian Church, or any religious institution. It is really the opposite to the picture that you paint.

Mate, live and let live. That is all.

I am not sure why gay activists are so desperate for same sex relationships to be recognised legally. Perhaps it is the financial benefits that come with marriage, as if the double incomes no kids is not enough! Oh yes some have children with another partner, paving the way for polygamous relationships to be recognised.

Surely if a same sex relationship was so strong, legal recognition would make no difference to the relationship. Many just have their own commitment ceremony and live happily ever after.

BD
You might like to reconsider your choice of texts to quote.
you quoted from Romans 1: 21, 26-27.

The only problem is according to this text Paul is actually arguing that homosexuality is punishment for not worshipping God properly! Homosexuals are born that way. So if these versus are correct then the baby must have been worshipping God improperly in the womb. LMAO.

Paul was an ill informed 1st century theologian. The ideas he presents in this verse are just nonsense & should be treated accordingly.

Is that the best you've got BD? Boy that is a sorry argument. I thought you'd read & understood scripture. My mistake.

Davo
Every argument you've put forward can also be used against heterosexual marriage. After all if men & women truely love each other why do THEY need to have their relationships recognised. Especially the childless ones that work. Double income & no kids. They're obviously in it for the money. :D
Of course you'd say that's not true. Those people love each other & want to declare that love openly. So do gays & lesbians.

As to the discrimination they recieve. How about the fact that no matter how long two men or women have lived together if one is dying in hospital their partner will not be allowed to see them. Does that strike you as fair? I have a few thousand other examples of other forms of discrimination if you don't like that one.

Morality cannot be based on theistic religion because those religions require moral beliefs as part of their own foundation.

At the heart of Christianity lies the belief that by his death and resurrection, Jesus saves us from our sin. But Christians have disputed for centuries as to how the crucifixion does this. Three main views dominate the debate.

There is the substitution view, which says that there has to be a punishment for our wrongdoing, there is a price that must (i.e. ought to) be paid. What Jesus does is to take our punishment for us.

Then there is the exemplary view. On this view, Jesus’ life and death give us an example of how we should live. We are saved from sinning because we learn how to live without it.

Third, there is the sacrificial view. Roughly, this says that Jesus took on himself our sin, and when he died, our sin died with him.

The unresolved debate between these views is of necessity carried on with the use of moral views. For example, it is objected to the substitution view that is presupposes a defective retributive view of punishment. That presupposition implies that you could pay the price first, and then commit a wrong. In other words, the presupposition makes a moral mistake.

I can go on, if people would like to learn some theology, and see the argument completed.

At the heart of Judaism lies the belief that God called Israel to be his special people. But there was a dispute about the meaning of that call, which was not settled until the first century AD. The issue was, did God call Israel for its own sake, of for the sake of the whole of human kind.

It was finally agreed that it was for the sake of everybody, because the first view did not make moral sense—it attributed an immorality to God.

At the heart of Islam lies the belief that Allah has given us a law to be obeyed. But there is a dispute about how that law is to be interpreted. Take the precept that a thief must have his hand cut off. A liberal view holds that at the time the Kor’an was being written, theft could cost a person’s life. If you steal someone’s water while you are crossing a desert, you kill him. As a response to murder, it is, for its time, a relatively merciful punishment. But today, theft rarely causes death. Accordingly, the law should not be taken as implying that thieves today should have the offending hand cut off.

Moral judgement is thus required to make sense of all three religions. Morality cannot be based on any of them, for they are based (in part) on moral reasoning.

Morality in fact does not need to be based on anything outside itself; and logically it cannot be. (Why do you Christians thinks that God is good or that you ought to obey him?) It does not follow that morality is relative to a society or a culture—indeed, those views are demonstrable nonsense. It does not follow that morality is relative to an individual either—but it is not so easy to show that that view is wrong.

I think relativism is wrong, all the same. But in any case, individual moral relativism is compatible with moral argument being conclusive.

So let us have no more of this talk about morality being based on religion. It is a mistake. Instead, let’s argue the issues properly.

Hello Bosk:

You wrote:

"The only problem is according to this text Paul is actually arguing that homosexuality is punishment for not worshipping God properly! Homosexuals are born that way. So if these versus are correct then the baby must have been worshipping God improperly in the womb. LMAO.

The problem with your argument, if you consider the central message of the Bible at all, is that all people are born sinful.

Consider the full quote From 1 Corinthians 6:

9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,

10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.

In other words, there are a whole lot of people who Paul makes comment on, who all go against God's will.

It should be remembered that all of the above must turn from sin and follow Christ to inherit the kingdom of God.

I will argue against Christians using 'the law' (which never saved anyone) against the actions of immoral others as I am against those who want to say that the law does not apply to them, like yourself.

Each person (including my flawed self), must eventually answer to God, not to me or any other person for our morality. By all means have your gay marriages and civil unions, others can have their adulterous relationships, others may get drunk with wine rather than being filled with the Holy Spirit. I cannot see how laws against these will do any good.

Just don't claim Holy blessing on what you do using Holy Scripture.

And maybe all those Christians who are against these things should remember what Christ said: "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." Let God judge people's morality.

Can someone here spell out what is it exactly that a same sex marriage will improve on the current relationships?

Someone mentioned rights of hospital visitation and care for a dying mate. I find no reason why this is not being allowed.

Is it for financial reasons? For example enheritance…I would have thought de facto relationships are good enough these days.

Also homosexuals are asking the church to stay out of their lives. How can that be possible? We share the same planet.

How can a loving Christian family raising their children on biblical principles (marriage) then have to explain that Bob and Harry or Jane and Di next door have another type of marriage allowed by society?

We cannot shut you out because you are “in our faces” everywhere unashamed, noisy, and ever demanding rights and more rights. Too bad if the rest of the world disagrees with your debauchery.

I don’t care if you believe you were born that way or decided to lust (punt intended) for each other later in life. Sin is sin. Love it is not. If you knew the real meaning of love you would be on your knees right now asking God for forgiveness.

Living in sin (pride) is what God so detests. No amount of sugar coating will make it more palatable.

There is no convincing reason why you should continue to alienate yourself from God, or worse persuade God to change His rules for you; and believe that you can argue your case of self-imposed damnation.

Rejecting God does not hide you from His wrath. You are so deep in your transgressions that you have lost the ability to see right from wrong.

Jesus’ final words on the cross: “Father, forgive them for they don’t know what they are doing”.

Repent, and seek help while you still have a chance.

Accusations of bigotry. Waffle about conservatism and fundamental Christianty (no mention of Islam which is really opposed to homosexuality). It's surprising that there have not been squeals for a Bill of Rights to protect homos.

Good old common decency doesn't get a mention. But there's not too much of that about these days. Everyone has a 'right' to do as he or she pleases. All of us who have only a decade or so left in the cesspit should be very glad.

The frantic defences of homosexuality and the 'rights' of people of the same sex to have their odd relationships recognised in law indicate that it is not only the people who confess to being homosexuals who are having trouble with their sexuality. People who can support such behaviour need to have a long, hard think about themselves.

Geez, davo, which discussion are you participating in here? Let me remind you of the marriage statistics above http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=4598#45246 which you are conveniently ignoring: in 2004 there were 111,000 marriages and 52,747 divorces in this country. Every single one of them involved a man and a woman. Gay unions aren’t undermining marriages – the people who are allowed to marry are doing a great job of it by themselves.

Unlike straight relationships, it’s not possible to say that homosexual relationships don’t last, because being unrecognised, there are no reliable statistics.

But since you’re interested, you might like to take a look at the submissions to the HREOC Inquiry on Same-sex relationships http://www.hreoc.gov.au/samesex/submissions_index.html You will see some of the obstacles that same-sex couples have to overcome in order to stay together.

Leigh, I think you’ll find that the reason anti-gay muslims aren’t being mentioned is because there aren’t any here. Most of the loopiness is coming from people who claim to be christian, though there are some here whose religious beliefs require them to behave honourably towards same-sex attracted people.

When you claim that de-criminalising homosexuality was misguided, you’re trying to take us all back to medieval barbarism. Bigotry and persecution (your terms, not mine) are entirely appropriate for what you are advocating here.

No doubt you’re both aware of the research which indicates that those who hate homosexuals the most are more likely to be repressed homosexuals themselves: http://snipurl.com/aktl

LEIGH WROTE: “Fair minded Australians” believe that homosexual couples should have their twisted relationships protected by law, do they?

Leigh's comments exemplify the acid of the anti-gay lobby (comprised of militant homophobes, heterosupremacists, hypertraditionalists, theocrats & homocontrarians) & show how opposition to same-sex rights is very much based on irrational fear, loathing or hatred of same-sex attraction.

We have on our hands a modern day witch hunt. Same-sex couples and their children the victims of a fear-inspiring mob with pitchforks at the ready. They are well-resourced, influential, determined and have no tolerance for diversity. They do not promote an authentic best interest for all Australians.

In contrast, according to Newspoll, ACNielsen, nineMSN poll, the electors of the ACT Government & the overwhelmingly positive feedback received by Senator Gary Humphries (who crossed the floor to vote for the disallowance of the ACT Civil Union override), many Australians DO support a fairer go for same-sex couples. The younger the demographic, the greater the support. So despite the laughable, paranoid claims of the caterwauling "We Hate Homos" lobby, ordinary real Australians, going about their daily lives, are neither scared nor threatened by the prospect of legal same-sex partnerships. What they're probably fed up with is tome-thumping religionists and contemptuous homophobes demanding legal and social conformity to their mean cultish views.

Clearly, sizeable support exists in the community for giving same-sex couples a fair and equal opportunity under the law. And rightly so. Australia is, after all, a Commonwealth -- not an AngloHeteroChristianWealth.

Now that is something WORTH having a good hard think about.

To those who are vitriol to same sex couples. I question your understanding of the meaning of Love, as it appears you have no respect to those who are not of your thinking.

Have you ever had true love in your lives? It would be interesting to read the comments of your spouses ( that is if, you are in a committed relationship).

I am grateful that I am not a follower of your "God", as there appears to be no love within your flock, only bitterness and ignorance

What is being proposed and pushed upon us by the gay lobby is an all-new family unit, consisting of a mother-and-mother or a father-and-father with or without children.

A choice is set before us : that of sacrificing to the gods of political correctness, or of considering the most innocent and fragile members of our society - our children. If we choose the former, it is the children who will be that sacrifice. Why?

Because the family is the building block of society. When the building block of society falls, society falls with it. Western society is under threat.

There is sufficient evidence that gays and lesbians are far too volatile and unstable as a group to justify risking our society and especially the safety of our children.

The negative impact children may suffer simply from having two parents of the same sex - or having friends and neighbours in that predicament - is alarming considering the historical significant higher rates of suicidal tendency, promiscuity, pedophilia, drug abuse, aids, multiple partners, and domestic violence among homosexuals.

The question we should be asking ourselves is society really willing to risk its future for the sake of political correctness and tolerence?

We have not yet seen the end of the domino effect of societal deterioration caused by humans unwillingness to follow God's ways and truths...

Coach

Those relationships (M/M & F/F with or without children) are already in existence. Back in the late 1970s I had as neighbours a lesbian couple, the older of whem had previously been married and had children. Her marriage 'failed' but the lesbian relationship was working. Her children were not preteens however.

The idea of two women living together in this sort of relationship did not shock or distress me in the slightest. As I said, this was 30 years ago.

Do I think that this is the idea situation for the raising of children? Well, no. However I also do not see the bickering that happens in a percentage of heterosexual relationship breakdown being conducive to the raising of children either. I particularly detest either parent trying to exclude the other parent from their children's lives out of spite or because it is more convenient for the residential parent's new partner to be called 'mummy' or 'daddy'.

Modern marriage really cannot be held up as the magnificient institution that some people think. Heterosexual marriage can be good, even great, it can also stink. Before Christians start thumping the idea of gay marriage, maybe we should be removing the log from our own eye before dealing with the mote in some-one esle's.

I would hope that people in general, both gay and straight, and transgender (and there are more transgender people with children out there than many people would realise), would actually be trying to do the best by their children.

Coach. Have you tried getting a life, outside your own narrow insulated exsistence. Is preaching hatred and damnation all you have to offer humanity. You have your extreme "religous beliefs", live with it and you will be respected. Impose your medieval beliefs on others, then be prepared for a harsh response to your bigotry and demeaning of your "religous beliefs".

Hamlet
Thank you once for attempting to prove that God hates homosexuals [&/or their behaviour], however the quote you’ve provided does no such thing & is irrelevant to the point I was making.

Allow me to quote a theologian on the verses from 1 Corinthians 6 you’ve quoted OUT OF CONTEXT!

“The two Greek words translated "male prostitutes" and "sodomites" in v. 9 of the NRSV are malakoi and arsenokoitai. Malakoi means "effeminate," "weak," or "soft" and is the word used of "call-boys" whom older men (arsenokoitai) took to bed. (The latter term is also the one used in 1 Tim. 1:10, which appears in another list of vices.) The context here in 1 Cor. is one of HETEROSEXUAL immorality; homosexuality as such is NOT the topic at hand. Paul simply mentions the sort of abusive, exploitative homosexuality that goes on between young "call-boys" and their customers as one example of the sort of immorality Christians in Corinth should avoid. "This is what some of you used to be" implies only that some of the Corinthians were guilty of some of the vices Paul mentioned. Not much more can be made of this.”

As you can see Hamlet when the historical & linguistic context is introduced the verses actually mean something entirely different than what you’re implying. At least BD’s quote actually dealt with homosexuality.

Let’s consider the context of ALL of Paul’s verses about homosexuality shall we? As many verses make clear, Paul considered everyone to be born heterosexual. So where did homosexuals come from according to Paul? Homosexual behaviour was, according to Paul, a punishment by God for not worshipping correctly. LMAO. But we know that’s NOT the cause of homosexuality – biology is. Paul got it wrong! So ALL his writings on homosexuality are based on mistaken ideas concerning sexuality and therefore should be treated the same way. As the nonsense they are. That’s the context of Paul’s writings concerning homosexuality. Like it or not.

I have nothing against uniting people of the same sex.

But it is their misfortune they cannot have children and it should remain their misfortune they should not be allowed to raise children. Remain as it has since humanity began

This is what happens when normal people get addicted to reassuring themselves that the literal will of the almighty Creator is contained in a collection of ancient, poorly translated, politically abused arab folk tales.

If God hates homos, why does He keep producing them, and why hasn't He complained about it in 2000 years?

Hi all
Has anyone noticed that those opposed to same sex marriage NEVER give evidence to support their wild assertions?

Coach says there is a negative impact on children raised by homosexuals - no evidence provided.

Davo asserts that homosexiuals only want to get married for the financial perks - no evidence is provided.

Grey asserts that if we let homosexuals get married then others will push to marry their pets - needless to say no evidence is provided.

Does anyone begin to notice a pattern? :D

At least Boaz David & Hamlet quoted scripture to support thier view - even though their quotes ignored the historical & linguistic context. Hint: If both of you claim to follow scripture, then at least learn about the culture it comes from. There's NO hope of understanding it otherwise.

Peace all
Bosk

Bosk

Leviticus 18:22
22 " 'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.

Genesis 2:24

24 For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.

I am not into stoning sinners, and I recognise that sexual sin is just one aspect of the breakdown in the relationship between God and humanity, I will not condemn adulterers and those who sin in their hearts by looking with lust on a woman in a marketplace. God alone has that prerogative, but I have a choice as to whom I will associate with in a ‘faith group’.

Christians are also called to not associate with the immoral, particularly those who boast in their own immorality. Immorality includes such things as abuse of alcohol, argument for augment’s sake, divisiveness and the like. This is particularly difficult for me, as my wife is an active alcoholic, who is deep in her illness. So I am torn between the call to non-association and the requirement for marital faithfulness in my own home, so don’t accuse me of not considering such things deeply.

So here lies my problem with gay marriage: as a liberal I cannot object to two consenting adults forming a union in what passes for love these days. Mind you, I see love as duty rather than feeling. As a Christian, if a gay couple joined the church that I am a member of, I would have to deeply consider whether I would remain in that group of believers. I would not take action, or speak against that couple, but I feel that I would have to find another faith group with which to worship. Anything else would be sin, as anything not done in faith is sin. I have similar difficulties with female clergy, except for the fact that I consider that as Christ is the one true priest the idea of a priesthood on earth should be abandoned completely. As you may have guessed, I am a Sydney Anglican!

That is why, Hamlet, any State, can only consider Civil Unions. They have absolutely nothing to do with the Christian Church. It's a legal issue not a religious issue that all civilized countries are resolving. Australia is refusing to be civilized. Most European countries have done this, Canada, NZ, many US States, and even Argentina.

One fool wrote above that there was no evidence of gay persecution or oppression in NSW or Australia. RUBBISH!

The statistics show that country NSW has the highest male youth suicide rates than any other country or region on earth sharing that with the bible belt of the USA. Most of the teenage boys who killed themselves were found to be gay. In the statistics, they came from Christian families, and just couldn't cope with Christianity being shoved down their necks and being bullying, any longer.

You incited the death of all those innocent kids with your oppression, and you have the gall to swan in here taking the high moral ground. You speak of nothing but hate to all for gay men. Didn't you ever think that your words and actions had consequences? Wicked, nasty, hurtful consequences.

More gay men are bashed in cities than any other minority group. Trangenders are 8 times more likely to be bashed than anyone else.

I've read every Christian speach here, and matched the same justifications that were made from the Spanish inquistion.

How else do you plan to oppress homosexuals and torture the muslims in an attempt to force them to repenting to Christianity?

Not one kind remark has been made my you hateful bigotted Christians to gay couples. Civil Unions only allow the commitment their love each other. These predatory Christians only spit poison, as vipers do.

As history proves, they wanna torture the Islams, mutilate the gays, or just drive them to suicide, as they are doing now. Thanks be to God. Praise Jesus. May the viper in your spirit boil your blood. Hello? Someone see something wrong here? Did I just see Satan? Sneeky thing, he swims with the christians now.

BOSKY

"Those who oppose....never give evidence"

Mate.. "evidence" will always be subjective. No one can deny that for the gay couple themselves it won't be a drama. BUT....

The social consequences for the community will be a different story.

-Its not so much an issue of 'evidence'..er what would you like, some kind of survey which shows what percentage of people would be happy for 2 men screwing each other to be living next door ?
-How many people would be happy for their sons to be friends with a man who gets his kicks from the anus of another man ?

I'm surprised that one so enlightened as you even asks the question about evidence. Surely you know enough about social theory to understand the potential impact of young children being actively educated (deliberately brainwashed) about '2 mummies' or '2 daddies' ?

Then, you also seem to neglect the 'flow on' effect. Do you REALLY think that the sexual revolution will end with the total acceptance of homosexual behavior within the currently specified boundaries ?

How much does one have to hold up in your face in capital letters the existence of:

a) Continual pressure to LOWER the age of consent
b) Groups such as Nambla who are campaigning USING THE SAME REASONING as the gay lobby to promote their own cause

To quote Jesus "There are none so blind as those who WILL NOT see"

and

"If a blind man leads a blind man, won't they both fall into a pit" ?

Its that simple Bosky, perhaps the blindness that you seem to exibit is from dark glasses you deliberately selected for the purpose ? :)

Jpw2040, your passive aggressive rubbish is transparent and kind of lame.

It seems quite clear that most people want to have a say in what their society encourages and deems as right and wrong. You are trying to the very same thing now. So you do the very thing you are ranting against. A common relativistic problem. Or perhaps this is projection? I’m not just putting forward my opinion, but making an argument. As opposed to your claiming that it is a ‘human right’ which is just trying to define your own position as true. Stupid and transparent. You have yet to justify why we should radically redefine marriage.

Accusing me of underhand tricks is more of the same…your double speak on the federal government ‘redefining’ marriage is pathetic. They merely codified the commonly accepted definition. If same sex marriages were legal before, how many did we have?

As for polygamy being a ‘consequence’ of same-sex marriage. Reread what I said, that “it logically leads” I.e. The same logic that justifies same sex marriage justifies polygamy. The fact that you are unaware of the trends towards polygamy in countries where same-sex marriage is allowed (such as Canada most recently) shows you have tunnel vision, or perhaps your accusation of me peddling lies is merely more of your projection? Perhaps you already knew about these things
(Eg: <a href=”http://alangrey.blogspot.com/2005/09/morality-those-wacky-slippery-slopes.html”>Netherlands first polygamous civil union</a> or
<a href=”http://alangrey.blogspot.com/2006/01/moral-relativism-and-multiculturalism.html”>Report for Canadian Government recommending polygamy</a>

Pedophilia? Eg: <a href=”http://alangrey.blogspot.com/2006/05/pedophilia-party-in-amsterdam.html”>Pedophilia party in amsterdam</a>)

The ‘slippery slope’ isn’t being used. What is being used is reductio ad absurdum. That is, the logic used to justify ‘P’ also justifies ‘Q’. Perhaps you need to retake that one intro to logic class you took in high school.

Oh, and if you’re not using relativism, on what foundation do you decide what’s right or wrong (Note that I’m not asking what you think is right and wrong, but on what basis you decide what’s right and wrong)

It’s clear that your definition of compassion is to encourage people to hurt themselves. That sort of ‘compassion’ I’d rather not try.

http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6553

Jpw2040,

A dozen lines published online by unknown people from an unknown university, and you’re convinced of the old pop psychology regarding people disgusted by homosexuality having latent tendencies in that direction themselves. Try thinking for yourself instead of taking as the truth unprovable claims from deep south hicks.

Why not say that people against child abuse (no connection to homos intended) are latent child abusers; people against murder are really would-be murderers themselves; people against drugs are closet druggies, and so on. You could have lots of fun fooling yourself.

“Because there aren’t any (anti-gay Muslims) here” is perplexing. The last census found that there were 300,000 of them here. We have Muslims who are contributors to OLO, and homosexuals and their camp followers on this site have said much against the Islamic stance against unnatural sexual practices.

Then we have Brendan.Lloyd who uses some amazing descriptions of people who find homosexuals and their practices disgusting. He claims that we do not have “an authentic best interest for all Australians”. Only he could know what he means by that. He also attempts to show the righteousness of his weird ideas by quoting a poll, and says that many (just how many he doesn’t say) “DO support a fairer a fairer go for same-sex partners”. Yes, but as the politicians say, the only poll that counts is the one at elections.

BL even claims that: “Clearly, sizeable support exists in the community for giving same-sex couples a fair and equal opportunity under the law.”

Clearly? Apart from the screeching on OLO, there is clearly no evidence at all for this claim

Once again, the homo-hating lobby blurs what is (for rational people with at least half a brain) a very clear distinction homogenital acts (behaviour -- what people DO) and homosexuality (a naturally occurring, unchangeable, unchosen, sexual modality -- what people ARE).

Your puerile debased arguments can be thrown right back at you, BOAZ_David. How many people "would be happy" for their sons/daughters to be friends with a man who gets his kicks from the anus or throat of a woman? Your emphasis on behaviour rather than the actual topic of legally formalised commitment, just shows the paucity of your arguments. Furthermore, I suggest to you that most people, regardless of their views on homogenital acts, would prefer to live next door to a committed same-sex couple than an unmarried one.

BOAZ_David, predictably, raises the spectre of a negative "flow-on effect" but consistently FAILS to plausibly articulate what those consequences are supposed to be. Sheer paranoid nonsense.

I must admit the nature of this debate has truly shocked me, it has made me aware of my own naivety.

It is clear that seemingly intelligent people will construct amazingly elaborate arguments to justify their prejudice, often with the words 'tradition' and 'normal' being thrown around, the cynic inside me suspects the words faggot and lezzos aren’t far from their tip of the tongue.

I just couldn't believe that so many OLO writers are so adamantly opposed to this, I have a loving relationship with my fiancé and I simply do not understand how on earth a couple of blokes down the road who also share that same sort of love have ANYTHING to do with the relationship that I share with my partner. Its simply irrelevant to my life.

In a time where their are so many pressing social and international issues, this is not the time to be getting worked up about this massively insignificant issue, let gay people live the same way heterosexuals do and just get on with our lives.

Leigh - The absence of the regular muslim posters here is a direct reflection upon how they take no notice of our Australian laws and politics. Muslims have their own cultural agenda, and their own legal system that nullifies any “other” local civilization.

We have seen how they’ve attempted recently to introduce their “Sharia Laws”by stelth – and how they have a stupefying disregard for the Australian culture.

As for their homosexuals – they don’t want to know about them yet – because if they did it’s the death penalty of course. And that’s not good PR is it? They don’t want to rattle their chances at a “peaceful” take over of our land while we are all asleep or watching football.

Paranoia? I sure hope so…but the signs and historical records don’t lie.

BL says -

>>…homosexuality (a naturally occurring, unchangeable, unchosen, sexual modality -- what people ARE).<<

I say it’s more what people want to continue to DO.

The first thing you must admit is that you are sick and that you need help. To pretend and believe that homosexuality is “natural” is very controversial, unprovable, and is not helping your cause a bit.

Our children can’t wait to be free enough to drink/ smoke just like other adults... after all it is legal and culturally natural.

Can you see the parallel when children are given a social “choice” instead of a "clinical remedy”?

Carl, we do let same sex couples live out their lives. Since their cause is so insignificant, as you say, they don't need marriage or marriage clones such as civil unions. The traditional, nuclear family should be held up as the ideal for the sake of our children. No hatred here, just plain old common sense!

Coach,

You forgot to mention that violence against gays is also a Christian practice in the middle east. Gay men are stoned and bashed in the streets of Assiut south of Egypt by fellow church goers. The Church of Alexandria ban all sorts of homosexuality as an 'ati-god' behaviour. Intellectual dishonesty is not a good quality.

Iran? I think I need to state something important about oppression in Islamic countries.

In the last year were two young gay teenagers in Iran, that were tied to stakes, had their tongues cut out, eyes gauged out, and had rocks thrown at them, as hundreds of Muslums cheered at them being tortured to death in public. Sad to think, they were 15 or 16 years old, younger than some of the kids that I teach.

I have had to help 2 assylum seekers from Islamic countries to enter Australia who were persecuted by Islamic terrorists. I won't go into details: private I respect that. One was from a large Islamic city, and someone noticed he did have a secret boyfriend.

He lost his job, was publically shamed, and that was the start.

He also loved soccer an was spotted by a well known terrorist in the crowd. The terrorists and their thugs told him that gay people were not welcome, and the whole crowd violently threw rocks at him to leave.

He was courageous, maybe unwise and shouted back that at least he wasn't a terrorist, and denounced Islam: spat in their faces. Then they really got angry.

Then the death threats came, the violence, and the heat esculated to the point where it was obvious that they were going to kill him. He escaped and somehow ended up in Villawood. I can't imagine what it would have been like.

I will never forget the look on his face when he thought that Australia would send him back. To Australia's credit, the Government recognised the persecution and he was released.

I think he will be a decent Australian citizen. Loves Australia, wants citizenship ASAP, and wants a civil union with his boyfriend, also previously Islamic.

This kind of courage, defiance, and detirmination I think, is what makes us Australian, as straight as most of us are. Civil Unions are part of this courage, maybe imperfect, a dream, but what is Australia?

coach,

be afraid, be very afraid, homosexual muslims are currently plotting to eat your children!! truly!!

nambla stands for Not A Miniscule Bloody Link [with] Australia. Recite it a dozen times, BOAZ, and give yourself a whack with your scourge every time you feel yourself wanting to mention it.

The tiny group you are possibly referring to was discredited in the eighties, has had absolutely nothing to do with Australia, and now has absolutely no connections to the gay rights movement anywhere.

Indeed gay rights organisations have a much better record of rejecting child abusers than the christian churches. Have you forgotten that we even had a Governor-General who didn’t know who to blame for sexual abuse? And what was his religious affiliation?

The campaign for same-sex civil unions is about partnerships between law-abiding consenting adults. So stop trying to smear those law-abiding people by associating them with illegalities which they have always rejected.

Alan Grey, the authority for the arguments you put to this forum needs to be a bit better than your own website. Anyone with sufficient time and ill-will can write a whole lot of blog articles, and then reference them in the kind of bilge that you dish up here.

Leigh, being a bit more careful with my language that you are, I said “indicates,” not “proves.” The homophobia research backs up a hypothesis, and provides us with a direction for future research. When this study is replicated here, I would urge you to volunteer as a subject. I feel confident you will learn something about yourself.

Ok you lot, who have brought up the tabloid standard of debate on this issue, which does not apply to you or affect you. Children, Animals, polygamy destruction of society and so on and so on!. My you lot really have to dig deep to try and make a point.

Well lets take the material point, and leave the kids, pets and home delivery orgy, out of this. A same sex couple have superanuation, just like yourselves.

What happens to your partners superanuation if they die? Yes it goes to you (CLEVER thinking boys!). Same sex couples, the superanuation does not go to the same sex partner, and no WILL can change that. next we have the joint assets of the same sex couple, accrued over many years like yourself can be taken away, even the home the same sex couple lived in for many years.

So boys, same sex couples do not have to dig to make their point, they live with it every day.

Now lets read comments from your spouses ( If you have one!)

Coach wrote:
>> The first thing you must admit is that you are sick and that you need help. To pretend and believe that
>> homosexuality is 'natural' is very controversial, unprovable, and is not helping your cause a bit.

The real sickos are the hardline heterosupremacists blinded by their futile, destructive loathing of same-sex attraction.

Homosexuality is demonstrably natural. Many people accept this. It is also supported by biology, physiology, psychiatry, throughout history and across cultures. Even many among the rabid anti-gay lobby admit this, preferring to argue that not everything natural is desirable. So you're out of touch with your own team there, Coach.

Moreover, homosexuality is not on trial here. It was decriminalised decades ago. So you're not helping YOUR cause by belittling homosexuals, Coach. All you've done is demonstrate your own bigotry.

Meanwhile, ordinary reasonable Australians are bored with the wild claims of the antihomo loons. They're scratching their heads, bewildered, wondering what all the fuss is about.

To Fellow_Human,

1. “The Church of Alexandria ban all sorts of homosexuality as an 'ati-god' behaviour.”

Is that why you converted to islam?

2. “Intellectual dishonesty is not a good quality.”

As an "honest" Moslem, you wouldn’t really want to mention Copts on this forum. Because you know damn well what is happening to Christians in Egypt at the hands of Islam. It is an international human right disgrace.

Copts – The Original Egyptians (before the Islamic Arabic invasion) - represent about 10% of the population (down from 30%). They are systematically being harassed and discriminated against by citizens, the police, and government officials, their churches burned, girls raped, families forced to convert to Islam, Churches left to crumble to the ground because repairs certificates are not being granted, job promotions denied, etc, etc…

So don’t come here and tell us about kids being teased in the street for being gay – when Islam is conducting a race extermination against Christians in the entire Middle-East.

Just watch how millions were displaced and killed South of the Egyptian border in Sudan or look to the West : all of North Africa in fsact is a no-Christian zone ... East ; Palestine, Saudi Arabia…etc…

Peace you say? On whose terms?

brendan.lloyd,

Even if you could prove that same sex attraction is natural; I hope you can at least admit that it is not normal.

Homosexuality was decriminalised decades ago; so now you are going for the full blown recognition : marriage.

What guaranty do you give to main stream “silent” Australia that, decades from now, it will not be something else…err.. maybe outlaw heterosexual marriages? legalising paedophilia? or polygamy? … oops that’s been done already by muslims here…

Well I’m sure you’ll come up with something to tantalise us.

Jpwd2040

"Alan Grey, the authority for the arguments you put to this forum needs to be a bit better than your own website. Anyone with sufficient time and ill-will can write a whole lot of blog articles, and then reference them in the kind of bilge that you dish up here."

Wow. You really are trying to be dishonest aren't you. Each of those posts links to proper sources and are easily verifiable. Implying that I am just appealing to my own authority is pathetic. You sir, are a poster child for the gay rights movement.

Alan, you didn’t provide links to the articles. You provided links to your own highly skewed commentary. That’s self-referencing. Curious that you can’t see the contradiction in condemning “moral relativism” while insisting on your own peculiar standards.

Anyway, would love to stay and chat, guys, but I’m off to get my butt waxed for that gay rights poster I’m posing for.

Y’all work on that human compassion ... you know, imagining yourself in other people’s shoes before you judge them. Fortunately the evidence is mounting http://snipurl.com/sc8b that the younger you are, the more tolerant you are. The crusty old bigots are dying out, and won’t be missed.

Which leaves you all with a simple choice: learn some core human values before you die, or go to your graves embittered, irrelevant cranks.

Either way, I forgive you all.

Ciao

JPW, I'm just curious, why are you getting your butt waxed for a gay rights poster? I dunno, I'm not on the anti-gay side, but the internal politics you work with will wonder that means. When are people going to de-objectify their bodies from shallow lust? What does your butt have to do with gay rights? Commodification of your body is not liberation.

Morris Eimma! Please, I need one of your Panadols.

As for you, coach, "so now you are going for the full blown recognition : marriage"

No coach it is called "Civil Union" in the legal system, or have you been asleep? It is not even equal, as no one is talking "marriage" anymore. If you think there is some secret agenda to undermine an institution of family, then you really are parandoid. This is just to stay away from the Church. It seems that isn't even good enough for you. What do you want? Gas ovens now? No, Hitler tried gassing over 15,000 homosexuals in the holocaust, and invented the aversian therapy machine. Yeah, the Cathololic Church loved the aversian theorapy machine. Remember that? The one they invented in Auwshwitz. It was supposed to cure homosexuality, but it failed. Oh yeah coach! You like that, don't you? It never did work, but it was a great form of torture. The catholic church in NSW made 300 referals to this NAZI invention in the 1970s. Not one law suit has yet been tried.

Coach: "What guaranty do you give to main stream “silent” Australia that, decades from now, it will not be something else…err.. maybe outlaw heterosexual marriages? legalising paedophilia? or polygamy?"

It is not up to gay people to guarantee that the Australian Government will do anything at all. None of this other rubbish is the decision of gay people as it is irrelevant and out of their league. Australia might even bring back the holocaust, aversian therapy, or even the Spanish Inquisition.

Outlaw heterosexual marriage? Coach, what drugs are you on? What a preposterous thing to say! You do make me laugh. Silly Billy!

i think this is one of the saddest things I have ever read.
So much hatred and so many nasty, prurient - indeed, almost obscene - comments from those who consider themselves righteous. Psychoanalysis would have a field day with some of this stuff, I imagine.
I have never been able to understand why anyone should care what other consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedrooms, or why any human beings should be denied equal civil rights with other human beings. And, as for normal or natural, who among us is completely either of those? And what do they mean, anyway? Once a strong minded, outspoken woman who longed to receive a decent education and have her opinions listened to and maybe even earn the same wage for the same work as a man, was considered unnatural and abnormal. Indeed, those two words are most often used to defend those with power from those without it who want it.
As for gay people bringing up children, well, they always have, of course, just often in miserable lies of marriages, Indeed, my husband, his two brothers and sister were raised by a gay father, none of them are gay but none of them are prejudiced against gays either. having seen how little someone's sexual orientation ( or behaviour) actually matters when measured against their full - and fully human - personality.
Gee it'd be nice to see some Christians actually show some christian compassion occasionally. They seem awfully good at passing judgement, but rather bad at humility, and I thought the ethos of their religion was rather the other way around....

Bosky and all

by suggesting:

a) Homosexual tendencies is 'biological' and
b) Therefore Paul got it wrong in Romans 1

You are also justifying the SAME approach to Paedophiles who claim "I was born this way".

Can you imagine it: a large protest march:

"We are HERE, we are QUEER and we LOVE LITTLE KIDS.. yeah yeah yeah."

"We exist.. get over it, we DEMAND OUR RIGHTS.. etc etc"

"How DARE you discriminate against us in regard to housing and accomodation..WE HAVE RIGHTS"...

sounding familiar ?

Then of course there is the singing dancing 'Village Mob' who show us that sheep humping, child molesting, little sister abusing people are in every walk of life.. aah yes.. we can all relax now.. THEY ARE EVERYWHERE ...

Next you will be telling us all that Jesus got it wrong when He said "If anyone leads a child astray it would be better for him to have a huge stone on his neck and be cast into hell"

And if you are not telling our Lord he was wrong, NAMBLA will be for sure.

The Gay lobby tries to differentiate itself from NAMLBA but they cannot.

For a more entertaining coverage of the issue, refer the relevant episode of SouthPark.

Unfortunately, EVERY ARGUMENT 'for' Homosexual behavior and 'against' the Biblical condemnation is ALSO an argument for incest, bestiality and paedophilia.

Sorry matey, you cannot have your cake and eat it too.

Cheers

Dear Boaz David,
Women are raped by heterosexual men, does that mean that all heterosexual men are rapists? Despite claims by a couple of the more looney feminists, I don't believe this for a moment. And, if we're talking pedophilia, I believe the most commonly accepted statistic is that 1 in 4 girls is sexually molested in childhood, and 1 in 8 boys. This would seem to indicate that most pedophiles are heterosexual men - sexual molestation by women is not unheard of, but is rare, and also tends to be heterosexual not homosexual. It would seem children have much more to fear from their straight relatives and neighbours than their gay ones, in that case. Priests, i'm afraid, being the exception here.
If heterosexuals can distance themselves from heterosexual pedophiles, ( who also tend to believe the children asked for it, wanted it and led them on and feel little remorse), then why can't homosexuals? why the..um..double standard?
this article is about consenting adults having the same economic, financial and legal rights and obligations as a couple regardless of their sexual preference. It has nothing whatsoever to do with child molestation, most of which is done to girls by heterosexually oriented men.

Ena,

Please be aware, Boaz is incapable of rational thought, as are many people on this forum it seems, yourself excluded. I beleive the official statistics are that 90% of paedophiles are in heterosexual relationships and that 85% of child abuse cases occur within the family, yet people argue that discrimination against gays is about "protecting family values".

We don't know why we punish ourselves reading some of these opinions. Ena is so right, they seem so full of hate and that hate seems to be based on the bible and how people intrepret it.
God will judge everyone when that person's time comes, really who are we mere humans to base our beliefs on a book that varies and is used to rule people's lives. If it was a book of love and truth, surely every religion would preach exactly the same text. Every Church, every christian. We dislike how in the name of God people justify what Govt legislations should or shouldn't be allowed to do, instead of basing legislations on equal rights.

In answer to others who have mentioned that children should not be raised by same-gender couples, we know of a few children raised in those relationships and they are top students and wonderfully productive citizens. Oh and guess what, they are not gay, not that that would matter. Oh and we know people who are gay who were raised in the perfect family unit, go figure.

The Perfect family unit for so many is based on empty unsubstantiated "facts" as to why it is the best way to bring up children. Surely before you place a Mother and Father in the perfect family environment "mold" or corner, you would consider a family the best type of family only based on the love, respect, encouragement and security they provide a child, not on their gender of relationship to the child. You will find Mother/Father families are not always filled with those things. Great Parents come in all shapes and sizes, grandparents, Aunties, Uncles, Same-Gender parents as well as Mother/Father parents, biological or non.

We just hope love shines through in the end, not a book or those who proclaim to be preaching God's word! Only God can truly do that, and he shall only do this when we meet him after our time on earth is through.

What are the gay community asking for?

Acceptance of their life by outsiders? No.
Recognition that they fit what is ’normal’ (whatever that is) in this society? No.
Rights beyond what every other individual who doesn’t fall into this category get? No.

Security and control over their personal lives? Yes.

It’s that simple. You don’t have to like what they are or believe that it’s right or wrong, or Gods will or not.

You just have to offer them the same thing you offer any human being in this country. The right to own property and share in that property with their chosen companion.

Are the anti-gay posters here implying that because someone is gay they do not deserve the right to choose who inherits their life’s work? Are they implying that deciding who gets to make life choices for them under some conditions is not their right?

Or are they simply saying ‘they are different so they don’t have any rights’?

Can people like coach and Boaz David answer this simple question without diverting from the question:

“Would you allow a gay individual to decide for themself who inherits their property and who makes decisions for them in case they are incapacitated?”

It’s that simple. Keep your answer brief please and try not to leave this particular field of play. Discussions on the behaviour being right or wrong can be left to another thread, eh?

Reason, I don’t know exactly what you mean by “a person like coach and Boaz David” - I don’t think I fall into the category - but here’s my two part answer to your interesting question. Yes I would allow a gay individual to decide for him or her self who makes decisions for that individual in the case of incapacitation. No I would not allow a gay individual to decide for him or her self who inherits that individual’s property totally because I believe if a person has u/18 children then there is a responsibility for that person to support their u/18 children. But this has got nothing to do with discriminating against people who are gay because I also would not allow a straight individual to decide for him or her self who inherits that individual’s property totally because I believe if a person has u/18 children then there is a responsibility for that person to support their u/18 children. If a gay (or straight!) person had no u/18 children then yes, they could do whatever they wanted with their property. The answer to all this (tee hee) is to go and see a lawyer (smirk, smirk) and get your advanced heath directive / living will and will and estate planning all worked out…. ;-)

Kipp ummm obviously this same sex couple haven’t been to see a clever enough lawyer generally if you own the house as joint tenants when one person dies the other person owns the whole – if you own as tenants in common then yes part of the house could be taken away.

BOAZ_David so you don’t like anal sex. Or is that only male-to-male anal sex? Do you think male-to-female anal sex is okay? What about oral sex? Or masturbation? If people stopped worrying about consenting adult homosexuals they could focus on opposing the proponents of pedophilia and bestiality (where there is no consent so it is rightfully illegal).

To all the Christians who are condemning what they see as immorality in Civil Unions for homosexuals, I would suggest that you consider: 1 Corinthians 5

9 I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people;

10 I did not at all mean with the immoral people of this world, or with the covetous and swindlers, or with idolaters, for then you would have to go out of the world.

11 But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler--not even to eat with such a one.

12 For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church?

13 But those who are outside, God judges. Remove the wicked man from among yourselves.

The emphasis that is not to judge those outside the Church. If you see immorality amongst your worship group, by all means take action, but certainly not hateful action, but try to lead those to righteousness. At the same time, look inside yourselves and inside the worship groups that you belong to. Should churches provide wedding services to those who have no belief or have shown a distain for Christian beliefs? I am asking a question, not providing an answer.

I have big problems with gays boasting in their homosexuality inside churches that have as a core belief that sexuality should be expressed in a marriage between a woman and a man, as equals. I am also aware of gays who have followed a path of celibacy as Christians. This is their choice. I also know that there are other Christians who are living 'in sin' with heterosexual partners or who use the services of prostitutes, who use drugs or abuse alcohol. I feel that the gays following Christ in celibacy are being better servants of God than the hypocrites.

But as for homosexuality outside the Church, so long as no one tries to make it compulsory it doesn’t worry me.

BD
A few points of sanity
1) Pedophiles are NOT claiming that they were born that way. In fact it has been recognised for decades that pedophiles come from homes where they were sexually abused as kids. Those abused kids then go on to abuse - thus completing the cycle.

2) Civil Rights have to do with being a citizen of a country - Australian homosexuals are citizens of this country & therefore should have the same civil rights as any other citizen of this country. Isn't that only logical?

3) Jesus said Zip, Nadda, Nothing about homosexuality. That's your hang up, NOT his. Ask yourself - if homosexuality is such a big deal why didn't Jesus say something about it? Shouldn't that question be important to you?

Once again, there is no connection at all between something's being natural (or unnatural) and what is right or wrong, or good or bad. Why do some of you (on both sides) keep repeating the nonsense? Many unnatural actions are morally obligatory. Many natural ones are morally wrong. It does not matter whether same sex activity is natural or unnatural. It tells us absolutely nothing about its morality. And, may I remind you, writing posts is not a natural activity.

Jesus, in dispersing the crowd that was trying to stone a woman caught in adultery, told them that the one without sin should cast the first stone.

Then he said, interestingly, "I do not condemn you, either Go From now on sin no more."

The point being that Jesus did not say that she was guiltless of the sin of adultery, instead he told her to 'sin no more', that is, not to continue in sexual relations outside of marriage.

As marriage at the time in Israel could only be between a man and a woman, Jesus injunction was against any sexual relationship outside of that of marriage between a man and a woman. Gay sex could only have been outside of marriage, and therefore was by definition a form of adultery.

Nowdays, in our secular society, sex outside of marriage is not frowned on, therefore, the secular world should have no problem even with the concept of adultery. Maybe those secularists who preach the importance of marriage should realise that they have been overwhelmed by reality.

Religious believers should however also have the freedom to decide, for themselves and their co-believers, a view about marriage, which should not be imposed on others.

Bosk, I don't know what your hang up is, I consistently aknowledge the right of gays to civil union, that is, that is not to have the religious part of society intrude on your beliefs and behaviour.

Why do you insist, apparently, on thrusting your interpretation of faith in the faces of those who want to feel differently to you about their own lives?

Boaz-David,

hmm, maybe I am missing something but it seems to me the "gay lobby" as you call it has a very easy way to differentiate themselves from phedophiles.

They are consenting adults. They do not harm anybody by their behaviour. We have no right to prevent them from engaging in this actions and no right to discriminate against them on this basis.

Phedophiles impose their actions on people who, by their age, are not yet capable of informed consent. They harm children. That is why we rightfully make pedophilia illegal. And rightfully discriminate against them (e.g. we do not let them apply for jobs as primary school teachers!) (and this goes for sheep and dogs, too, unless you think these animals are capale of informed consent...)

We are entitled to limit the freedom of individuals only when their behavior is harmful to others, this should be the basis of coercive actions on the part of the state, not arguments about something being "innatural" or "abnormal". Nature and normality have nothing to do with right or wrong. Invoking the power of the state to limit somebody's freedom is a very serious thing, and it needs very sound justification.

And, no, the Bible is no such justification. Many people do not believe in the Bible, you may think it is their misfortune, but you are not entitled to force them to live by its precepts, as long as in their un-Biblical behavior they harm no-one. You are free to dislike them, for sure, pity them, maybe, but not to enlist State coercive power to limit their freedom and actively discriminate them.

Separation of State and Church is a fundamental liberal principle and a gurantee of freedom for all (should it not be YOUR church that is in power... think about it!)

Pedant. It is not just about my partner and I, in wanting civil rights that you enjoy. Its about all same sex couples, many who do not have the security of tenure over their relationship.

You say go to a good lawyer, have you gone to a good lawyer, to protect your relationship rights and your joint assets. Why must same sex couples have to have the expense and involvement of a lawyer in their lives.

A Civil Union is about keeping third parties out of the relationship, and allowing same sex couples the right to live their lives with peace of mind.

Jpw2040
Wow…you are slow, I provided links to posts on my own site which contained links to sources if you bothered to check them out. These highlight that your comments are just plain wrong. It’s too bad you don’t have the integrity to admit that and instead continue with the obvious false self-referencing complaint.

It is curious that you continue to show your complete ignorance of logic. I am not insisting that what I believe is right simply because I believe it (that is the irrational nonsense of moral relativism that you continue to peddle). In fact, if you bothered to look, my arguments do not talk about whether same sex marriage is wrong or right morally, but simply that society should encourage the family structure that works best and is not duty bound to provide the same encouragement to something doesn’t work as well.

That you try to bring up your malicious brand of ‘compassion’ where you encourage people to hurt each other is just more evidence that you have no rational argument, just a continued stream of catch phrases that you use to try and shut people up instead of rationally discussing the issue.

Lets see….summarising the arguments here (e.g. by John Wilkonson, ena, jpw2040 etc)
1) People who oppose homosexual marriage are not ‘fair-minded’, but instead are nasty and mean. (including various lame efforts at implying it is a negative psychological condition)
2) Marriage is a civil right.

Both of these are wrong. The first is just an insult, not an argument. Those who are calling those opposed to gay marriage mean are trying to encourage a harmful activity. Perhaps they should take a good long hard look at themselves before they find out that those comments apply to them more. Compassion is not about encouraging people to harm each other.

Secondly, marriage is not a civil right. Marriage has two aspects, one is religious, the other is civil. In the civil sense, society can bestow privileges to encourage institutions and activities that benefit society as a whole. These privileges are not rights. It is the same as society giving tax breaks for research and development and charitable organisations, but not for all other activities. It isn’t a right, it is a benefit or privilege given to encourage things that are of benefit to society. Complaining that there are extra costs in achieving the same legal status is irrelevant. This is why civil unions are also a bad idea.

That the homosexual lobby continues to try and radically redefine an institution that has existed for thousands of years without any real argument for it shows it is a hollow issue that only gains ground by insults and ignorance of this lack of argument.

Alan,
Can you please introduce evidence that same-sex relationships are harmful – either to an individual or society?

Otherwise, could you also address my questions specifically?

Kipp, anyone (unless you are not mentally competent), gay or straight, has the right to make a will and make health directives. I did see a few lawyers (though since one of them was myself that one might not have been good tee hee!) and my will and health directives are done. When I was living with my husband before we married we had a cohabitation agreement. If you go to the Public Trustee they will write your will for free and you can go to a community legal centre and get free advice. There are even (shock, horror) lawyers especially offering estate planning especially for homosexual couples.

You say homosexual couples do not have security of tenure over their relationship. Tenure applies to land or employment not to relationships. As for security, plenty of married couples don’t have security in their relationships! I appreciate what I think you are saying, but since you’re not using terms correctly I can’t be sure. If what you want to say is, “I would like to be able to enter a Civil Union with my same sex partner and be treated legally the same as if we were a married couple” then I agree and think that you ought to be able to do so.

You say, “A Civil Union is about keeping third parties out of the relationship” - could you please provide an example? I thought a Civil Union was to acknowledge the committed relationship of two people for the rest of society and to gain equal welfare and taxation benefits as married or defacto heterosexual couples. So, impliedly, the State is becoming involved in the relationship.

As to why anyone should have lawyers in their lives all I can say is that lawyers are there because people are people, and it’s much easier to see one at the start of a relationship and pay a small amount than pay a lot at the end of a relationship because you didn’t do any planning for your joint assets.

Pedant wrote:

“You (Kipp) say, “A Civil Union is about keeping third parties out of the relationship” - could you please provide an example? I thought a Civil Union was to acknowledge the committed relationship of two people for the rest of society and to gain equal welfare and taxation benefits as married or defacto heterosexual couples. So, impliedly, the State is becoming involved in the relationship.”

There are other ways that the state is involved in relationships, both straight and gay. The classic example is the social security system, where a person’s live-in partner’s circumstances are also taken into account when working out levels of benefit that the state will pay in the situation of unemployment, illness and incapacity. Another area is that of ‘spousal support’, which whilst not often discussed, is where the better off partner in a relationship can required to pay support to the other person when a relationship breaks up. Another is sexually transmitted debt, where a partner goes guarantor or co-signs a loan agreement, only to be financially disadvantaged if the relationship breaks up.

I would welcome the gay community to involve themselves deeper in these issues.

Marriage, or civil union, should not just be about rights and benefits. It is about the responsibilities that often outlive the ‘love’ that brought the couple together. I have read here a lot about rights, but very little about responsibilities, or are these to be discarded in the new world of families?

This is not to argue against civil unions, but to suggest that people should realise that when they get married they should be prepared to give up a bit of themselves, and their individuality. If a person, straight or gay, wants to remain a complete individual with full choice of action in their lives then maybe they should remain single and just accept what companionship that they can. Marriage is about two people being wedded, or forming a union. Those words mean no longer being separate. Our society has so devalued the words ‘union’ and ‘marriage’ that it all becomes somewhat meaningless anyway.

Hamlet
Quote "Bosk, I don't know what your hang up is, I consistently aknowledge the right of gays to civil union, that is, that is not to have the religious part of society intrude on your beliefs and behaviour.

Why do you insist, apparently, on thrusting your interpretation of faith in the faces of those who want to feel differently to you about their own lives?"

Why do I insist on this? Because you have condemned homosexuality as a sin as well as agreeing that homosexuals have a right to have a civil union. Apparently asserting that homosexuals will burn for eternity is merely voicing an opinion while by disagreeing I am [according to you] "thrusting my interpretation in your face". Strange are the double standards.

Alan
Aparently heterosexuals have the privilege of marrying because they perfom a benefit for society. Well so do Homosexuals Grey. They pay taxes, serve in the police & the armed forces. Perhaps you meant that heterosexual relationships reproduce while homosexual relationships do not.

While this is demonstrably untrue I'd also like to point out that we allow infertile couples to marry despite the fact that they are not able to reproduce. Let's just be honest shall we Grey. You don't want homosexuals having the right [or privilege] of marriage because they are homosexuals, nothing more.

By the way. In almost every post you assert that homosexuals harm others. How? And what evidence can you produce? If you can't back up your statement perhaps you should just STOP making it.

Dear Reason... to make sure I answer your question "YES" I don't have a problem with anyone of any orientation determining such things.

This can surely be done with a 'will' ? or.. somekind of registered contract between the parties, which is purely a legal document.

Now..the other side. CULTURAL and SOCIAL IMPACT.

Do what you like behind closed doors... but is that where it all ends ? No jolly way !

If that was ALL homosexuals wanted, I can live with it, its their choice. But,

a) I do not want an openly homosexual couple living next door. (example, role model, influence on local cultural/spiritual atmosphere.)
b) I don't want my children educated to accept '2 mummies or 2 daddies'

c) I shudder at the thought of homosexual couples adopting children.

and.. its my democratic right to make a stand for this.

To answer Ena I think, there is no double standard. We don't TEACH that heterosexual molestation of small girls is an ok thing.

The point I'm making with "Incest,Bestiality, Paedophilia" is this....
There are people who will swear blind that THEY WERE BORN THAT WAY.
Get it ? So the point is "Being supposedly born with an abnormal sexual orientation" is NOT a reason to make it socially acceptable.

There are strong reasons to teach AGAINST such behavior and to underline the fact that it is NOT 'normal' and is not acceptable in the community.

This therefore relegates such behavior to opportunities as they present themselves, but not in mainstream social life.

Get rid of the rhetoric about 'hate' and 'Hate based on the Bible'

Its about having social standards, knowing what you believe, and making political and social and cultural decisions accordingly. I don't go around looking for the next gay to bash.

Do you HATE heterosexuals ? do you HATE people who disagree with homosexual behavior ? no ? ok.. then STOP attributing 'hate' to them on the issues they disagree with you over.
Otherwise it is just cheap political propoganda.

There are posters here who find it hard to imagine that there is any real discrimination against homosexual partnerships. in a way, that is good to hear, because they are making a rather sweet - if naive - assumption that we live in a fair society. But evidence would indicate that same sex couples are not exaggerating or imagining the deep seated discrimination against them.
Recently there was a story about a long term same sex couple, over 30 years from memory. One of the partners was an Australian returned serviceman. His partner was a younger Japanese man. Because he was Japanese and had a name that the bureaucrats could not immediatelt identify as male, on the death of his partner, he was granted a war widows pension. Once they discovered he was a male life partner, rather than a female - he didn't have to be a wife, you understand, de facto was fine, as long as female - his pension was removed.
This story is shocking, deeply shocking. This returned serviceman risked his life just as fundamentally as any heterosexual, he faced death and disruption in just the same way. Yet he was not permitted to protect and provide for his life partner in the way that his colleagues were. Same risk, differential reward. This is wrong. Either we reward homosexuals in the same way as heterosexuals or we allow them to opt out of national service, war and, perhaps, paying the same rates of tax. We can't have it both ways, it seems to me. If your blood is good enough to be shed, your money good enough to be taxed and contributed, then your rewards ought to be as good too.

lol@BOAZ, you regularly watch "South Park" programs? Mate, that smut is banned from my house as I have children.

Let us examine YOUR morals. What other smut, sleaze, and dare I say, pornography do you have a habbit in endulging in? re- your quote: "The Gay lobby tries to differentiate itself from NAMLBA but they cannot. For a more entertaining coverage of the issue, refer the relevant episode of SouthPark."

It appears you know more about South Park than anyone else posting on this page. You also appear to know more about NAMBLA than most others on this page. Please explain!

Do you get your NAMBLA videos from the same place that you get your South Park videos from? Don't answer, we really don't want to know.

BOAZ obsessively goes back to: "Unfortunately, EVERY ARGUMENT 'for' Homosexual behavior and 'against' the Biblical condemnation is ALSO an argument for incest, bestiality and paedophilia."

Is that on the other pornography tape you have locked up in the closet behind South Park? None of this criminal reference is relevant to gay people. Incest, bestiality and paedophilia may be YOUR kinky way, but they are NOT the kinky way of an entire minority group. You roll out this tired old nag time and time again like Gollum.

Someone hatefully scoffed that being born gay is like being born a paedophile, that is, a criminal. This chestnut keeps returning relentlessly: criminalising homosexuality by association. Do you really want them criminalised in the concentration camps like the NAZIs did again? Criminal association to gay people by unfair defamatory connotation is considered a hate crime in some European countries. Who is the criminal?

Gay guys who want a civil union by a celebrant, not in a Church (so last century darl.): "Kimmy" let me just say one thing. I make wedding cakes to die for. Not all straight guys are just self righteous gas-baggers from Fountain Gate. Some of us are useful to civilization.

Hi y'all
I remember when miscegenation was a crime in some US States. I recall all kinds of justifications for it being a crime - many of them on display above. In those time many people didn't accept black priests or mixed race churches either. I don't recall much better attitudes here (though I can't recall the same laws - wasn't there something about mixed race babies being given to white couples to ensure a good christian upbringing?).

I'm pretty sure that those who argue against same sex civil unions are well intentioned and see themselves as the protectors of society. So did the anti-miscegenists. Perhaps this is evidence for the slippery slope - allow interracial marriage and the next thing will be homosexual marriage. In which case, on the arguments of those using the slippery slope, they should also be out campaigning to make mixed race marriage illegal in order to reclaim lost ground.

But look at it differently for a bit. If marriage is such a good, powerful, and productive institution as is claimed, why exclude any group of people (note: people, not animals) from its good influence? That would be like excluding people from the good influence of the church - keeping them away from the very institution you believe can influence them for good. Or maybe marriage is so fragile that it must be protected, like the church.

odsoc

That is why it is called Civil Union in the legal system and not gay marraige in the church system. It doen't have anything to do with church, nor is there any agenda to undermine the chuch, or the institution of heterosexual marriage in the church.

Obviously a gay marriage cannot be consecrated, as there will be no eires. Reproduction is not the basis of their relationship, it is actually more pure than that, it is simply love itself, not reproduction, not approval, and not a family agreement. Love needs no concecration, or an eirie to prove the worthiness of a wife.

Civil union doesn't attempt to give real equal rights in a lesbians and gay men in a country as unfair and as backward as Australia, when you realise we are one of the last western countries to do make this move. It simply offers a comprimise where the outcome is similar, more modern, and we avoid a the 'ancien regime' known to sabotage a moment when people should be celebrating. We are, as you say celebrating the commitment to two consenting adults. The "old-wive's-tales" from mean pruned lips are irrelevant.

I hope when the time comes when lesbians and gay men don't have to fly to Candada to feel like equal human beings, to have their love as a basis of their life recognised.

Oh Candada! how pathetic Australia is....

Reason, to answer your Questions

1. I am not anti-gay as you put it. For me same-sex sodomy or lesbianism is an abnormal behaviour that should only be recognised in the clinical / criminal realms. There is nothing 'gay' about unnatural pathetic lustful antisocial conduct of so called “consenting adults”.

2. Since these fornicators have decided to indulge in immoral activities, why should society bend backwards (or forward depending on your inclinations) to allow them “rights” to harm themselves and others?

HARM? To all who believe that it’s ‘live and let live’; I concur with BOAZ_David that allowing same-sex perverts to teach our children is highly objectionable and immensely harmful.

I also know that this is happening in our schools. We can only blame ourselves as a society for allowing our collective moral values to slide so below the “acceptable” decent level that we became numb and unobjectionable to it all.

One has to turn on the TV – at any time of the day mind you – to watch the “legally” permissible standard of decadence. And that is what we are teaching our kids: – anything goes as long as you don’t hurt anybody. Eh?

We have allowed our children to get so morally deficient that they no longer recognise right from wrong.

To make things worse we (society) have allowed our vocabulary to “sweeten” felony to render it more pleasant. E.g. Adultery = having an affair. Homosexual practices = gay couples. Pre-marital sex = living together. Fornication = de facto relationship etc…

Same-sex should not have conjugal rights more than murderers should have a TV and a kitchenette in their cells, or for muslems to form their own parliament...

Woah, coach, after reading your weird and intemperate post, the only thought I was left with was that I would much rather anyone teach my children than someone like you.
I would certainly want to keep you as far away as possible from any young person who might be struggling with their own sexuality.
I often think the righteous do much more harm than the sinner because of their inability to see themselves as just another struggling human being and so exercise compassion, humility and wisdom.
Those are the qualities I'd want in someone teaching my children, I really couldn't care less what they do in the privacy of their own bedrooms with another consenting adult.

Indeed, the recent posts from coach and boaz-david have me deeply worried that THEY may in fact live next door and teach any future children I may have to be intolerant and judgemental.

Surely we as a society should be pleased that people are seeking to enter into a monogamous life-long committment? We reward such behaviour in the majority of the community, why not the minority also?

A couple of my friends are same-sex oriented, and truly, the fact that James loves a John rather than a Jane really does not impact on the integrity and love and respect that my relationship should and is accorded. I'd rather people were honest about themselves and who they wish to be with than trying to live a lie and make themselves and others miserable.

As I am in my mid-twenties, and my views are shared by almost all of my peer group, I can only assume that like such horrid modern innovations such as cross-racial marriages, women working, and television (all which were to bring down society at some point), that the day will come when James can marry John and have his relationship celebrated in the same manner as if he were to marry Jane.

Soon may that day come, that people will see that the sky will not fall on heterosexual marriages, or even society.

Seems like Gay marriage has become the symbol for modernity and progress. Allowing gay marriage, in some peoples eyes will show what a truly progressive society we have become.

What if someone is bisexual, and that person wanted a husband and a wife. Do we strive for fairness and equality and allow a polygamous marriage?

Some indicate oppostion to same sex marriage is hatred. Homosexuals have a habit of playing this oppressed minority card. Common sense should prevail, not some ideologically driven agenda. All same sex couples are infertile. Only some heterosexual couples are infertile. Our existence depends on heterosexuality. Marriage is a heterosexual union.

Issues like inheritance don't require gay marriage, nor does a hospital visit. It requires a change in the will or a chat to the hospital staff.

The truth is many homosexuals are anti society evidenced in pride marches which habitually mock religion and the traditional nuclear family.

Next on the agenda will be the right for gays to divorce. Never ends.

It's interesting that those against equal recognition for same-sex couples, write about how gays and lesbians allegedly violate societal norms and morals. Yet they also indicate that society generally accepts homosexuality. Therefore, is not their irrational anti-gay bias a violation of accepted societal norms and morals? Are they not "weird" and "pathetic"?

Religion should also not be used as a basis for law. We would have to decide whose religion to use! For example, if the state followed Hebraic law, we may outlaw the sale and consumption of pork. You may not think it hurts anyone to eat that ham sandwhich, but remember, it goes against someone's religious beliefs.

Davo: You don't understand bi-sexuality. It is not being involved with two people at the same time, one of each sex. It's simply about being ivolved with either gender. A bi-sexual person can be just as happy being involved with one partner, as anyone else. It just means that partner will be of either gender.

Polygamy is a diversion tactic, used when people don't have a rational, logical argument against same-sex couple marriage.

The existence of our species is not an issue that is dependent upon whether or not same-sex marriage is accepted.

I see precisely the same logical fallacies, fear and ignorance used in this debate in this forum, as I regarded during the same-sex marriage debate here in Canada. It was 3 years ago that same-sex marriage was legalised in the largest Canadian province of Ontario. All the ridiculous fears have proven unfounded.

Enough is enough, people. I registered as a blog user because this was a site devoted to current events. I did not expect to find blogs being used to vilify total strangers or deliberately hurt others in thread after thread. I recently went back over other threads and found that the same few people, time after time, turn blogs into religous tirades or demonise others.

Each one of us has freedom of speech and policies to protect those freedoms. These ensure that what we say is neither defamatory nor discriminatory by reason of race, gender, or creed. Yet I find myself both defamed and discriminated against on each of those counts throughout many of these threads - albeit I haven't even entered into the debate.

Responses to articles are intended to reflect our personal views on the article - not our personal interpretations of specific christian dogma. This was an article about civil law.That outburst of racism was not only offensive but entirely irrelevant.

I do not need anyone else to speak for me:I resent sweeping generalities which state that "all"...christians/women/foreignors/men/gays/non-Christians/heterosexuals/Australians/'normal' people think or behave in a certain way. I, and everyone else in the thread falls into certain of those categories and I very seldom find myself agreeing with the sentiments expressed. I've also been quite distressed by some of them.

Surely we should say "I believe/feel..." rather than the spurious "All good Australians believe" or "All normal people" think or do something? And surely BOAZ and Coach et.al, you realise that many people who consider themselves good Christians or good Australians for example, don't have exactly the same opinions as do you?

I think that if people consistantly divert discussion away from the topic and on to their religious beliefs we should simply ignore them until they can behave acceptably. Blogging is supposed to be fun, stimulating, educational and a good hobby. Everyone's allowed to play, you know. I and others have often been put off contributing knowing we'll invoke a tirade of personal abuse. That's not fun. Neither is it fair.

lol@Coach,

Coach gives himself away with this absurd statement:

"I am not anti-gay as you put it. For me same-sex sodomy or lesbianism is an abnormal behaviour that should only be recognised in the clinical / criminal realms. There is nothing 'gay' about unnatural pathetic lustful antisocial conduct of so called “consenting adults”. Note the Germen accent on the last line.

Of course, Coach never turns his head in lust when the blonde bikini girl walks past. Coach is Dudley Doo Right! He is probably not even heterosexual.

Not anti-gay? Under your definition, neither did the NAZIs, the SS Hiltler, Himmler, Goebels and so on, "hate" the gays in the holocaust during the Third Reich ... in those "criminal relms" as Coach puts it, using such "clinical" experiments, as Coach prescribes, as any neo NAZI would.

He doesn't hate homosexuals? Hate? Oh good heavens no! He just thinks that heterosexuals are superior, and gay people are inferior, or as Hitler put it, "the untermensch" (subhuman). This is "heterosexism": the other assumed inferior.

He just wants the untermensh in a holocaust, or torture them to death failing to "cure" the "uncurable". Or just use them as lab rats.

Coach is right. He does not "hate" them, he "fears" on them. That is what "homophobia" means. The superiority thing is a front.

The verdict. In the EU, Coach's statements could still be seen as hate-crime under their crimal code. That is a law in civilised countries.

This begs the question: with such a frightened NAZI like Coach shivering in his brown shirt and jack-boots: why does he keep coming back to this page?

Psychiatric diagnosis? Latent homosexual. Coach, you are a classic case. Are you feeling a little queer? You do take a great interest in the topic. Yet you can't wait to get your hands on them "faggots". Nothing positive comes from you, just poison.

Are you just here to bully people around or are you crying for help?

Hate and malice to minority groups is socially unacceptable not gay people.

I'm not that intersted in the civil union thing - it should be allowed - call it what you like.

I am interested in Boaz's position that he would not like an openly homosexual couple living next door to him - He did allude to reasons - role model etc - but I need to ask what action might he take if a couple did in fact settle down next door

Saintfletcher & co.,

Oooops - I better come out of the closet now - please don't shoot me!

It just shows how morality has declined to the level that a 20 year old cannot see what the fuss is all about.

For those who believe that religion has nothing to do with it – well you’re right – if you take God out of the discussion nothing really matters does it? We are all animals guided by our instincts and when we die it’s all over.

When someone expresses their opinion they are crucified for being intolerant and illogical. Go figure.

Having said that I truly apologise for my bluntness that has hurt some people.

My objective is to make my feelings known without being a hypocrite.

Coach, I resent your implied dismissial of my morality. (And for the record, I am not 20, not that it matters). Amoungst my friends are several people who attend church regularly, some who are fairly strictly catholic, and even they do not have issue with the idea of two men or two women marrying. Perhaps it is you, with your hate filled posts, who should be considering what a moral life really is. I was always under the impression that it was a life where one has compassion for others.

Bosk and Reason...do you really believe that same sex relationships are not harmful to themselves or society? That's breathtaking...

Oh, and Bosk, the benefit to society is providing the best environment for raising children, not paying taxes.

As to your question Reason, every person already has the ability to decide for themselves who inherits their property and who makes decisions for them in the case they are incapacitated. Kind of a pointless question really

To those who fear that same sex couples being given their civil rights, as all Australian citizens should have. May harm their own hetrosexual relationship, gives an indication that their own relationship ain't so scoopy doo!.

Questions have been asked, and not one of you have come back with an objective intelligent response. Its either the bible says this or you bring in the typical tabloid emotional angle of kids, or the put down of your fellow citizens.

By your postings you sound a sad lot of people, thank your god, you don't live next door to us!

Kipp & co.,

Question: What would a gay teacher tell a child when asked : I think I am attracted to another same-sex student?

a. Congratulate him/her and give a book of instruction on how to best have the most fun, safe sex, and never get caught. Plus instruct him/ her on their democratic rights and how to best fefend themselves from anti-gay attacks.

b. Encourage him/her to explore his/her sexuality with as many different partners until they find out for sure which is more "naturally" pleasurable. You don't want to rush to any conclusion yet.

c. Send him to a (non-gay hopefully) school advisor/ principal to get psyched and re-adjusted before it's too late. Plus advise the parents and have the family checked also for possible predetors, sexual history etc...

d. other...?

Grey
Quote"do you really believe that same sex relationships are not harmful to themselves or society? That's breathtaking..."

Allow me to show you why this is a lousy argument. Let's say I assert that christians are harmful to society. I say it again & again. I NEVER provide any evidence though I just assert it as though it were a self evident truth.

Finally you reply "look either present the evidence that supports what you've said or be quiet" I reply "Are you saying christians AREN'T harmful...that's breathtaking" Just another asserttion without any evidence isn't it? That's all you've done.

Now to your second point:
1) If heterosexual couples are allowed to get married because of the benefits they provide in raising children what about those heterosexual couples who are infertile? What about those who choose not to have children? Using your reasoning society shouldn't allow them to marry either. Why? Because such couples don't provide any environment for raising kids.

2) Let's look at two couples. On the one hand we have an alcoholic couple. They emotionally abuse their children. On the other we have two loving homosexuals. Who would provide the most stable loving environment Grey? The homosexuals wouldn't they? So your blanket assumption that all heterosexual couples provide a better environment for raising kids than a homosexual one is totally wrong!

Coach, the 'answers' to your 'question to the teacher' are downright stupid.

Any ethical teacher, straight or gay, would deal with it with sensitivity, tact and depending upon the age and maturity of the student.

If a straight teacher was asked by a student about that attraction to another student, the answer would probably be the same, something like: "Consider what effect it could have on your life", followed by 'if you have to talk to me about this then there would seem to be a problem, I am your teacher, not your counsellor, if you cannot talk with your parents about it, then perhaps you should try to see the school counsellor or I can give you the phone number of kidsline or something similar so you can talk it over with someone you don't have to interact with every day".

This would be the answer given by any ethical teacher, straight or gay. At my school, in the 1970s, we had two teachers who we knew were gay, one was as ethical as you could get, he was not interested in the students as partners at all. We also had another, whom some readers may recognise if I say he taught classics, wore academic robes around the school and drowned himself in a swimming pool just before his trial, who was completely unethical about relationships..

It wasn't that the teacher was gay that mattered, it was how they related to the students. It should also be remembered that far more heetro teachers have been inappropriate with students than gay teachers.

Coach, even you were probably taught by a number of gay teachers who did not let their proclivities get in the way of their ability and dedication to teach.

However, in the same way that I would not like to see hetero teachers display gushingly overt displays of affection in front of their students, I would not like seeing gays do this either. Not because they are gay, I just don't feel comfortable with teachers of any persuasion displaying their private lives in front of students too much.

@ Coach: "When someone expresses their opinion they are crucified for being intolerant and illogical. Go figure.". No one is going to shoot you.

I guess that means that if a person expresses their gay identity, then they should not expect to be crucified for their expression.

I don't mean to personally attack anyone in my postings. I did make a point, maybe in irony. Anyone has freedom of expression as I do. Gay people have the same freedom of expression.

As a teacher, I think Hamlet has a reasonable answer to the question you raise. I have been confronted with this situation as a teacher. Not an easy situation for a straight or gay teacher.

A young male has to be affirmed that they are valued by the school, and that the School supports them no matter what. They have not done anything wrong.

That is as far as we can go as teachers in this current climate. Sex cannot be discussed in private as it can be misinterpreted as sexual abuse.

To talk too much about any topic at all about what the kids do sexuaully is risky as it is out of a teacher's juristiction. Once the kid has the positive affirmation, our job is to keep them alive, mindful of our dreadful suicide rate with young gay males, we do have to be careful.

We immediately refer the kid to the counsellor offering to be a third party only if the counsellor and kid requests. We assure the kid that this is possitive and then we can take no particular interest.

The whole matter is then confidential, and it is up to the counsellor and the student and the school. In NSW, we unconditionally support them no matter what. It is the law under the Anti Discrimination act.

Between so many laws, including sex abuse laws, this is indeed a balance between responsibility and protecting the kids and ourselves from any abuse. We then pray to God that the kid will be happy with their life. I am not a perfect teacher. Who is?

Bosk, I'm confused. I expected you to actually answer my question, yet you ignore it. You seem to be arguing strongly for changing the traditional definition of marriage. Surely you have some research or something to back up why it's a good idea? Why it won't adversely effect children or society?

Your example of the two different couples is attacking a staw man. Nowhere did I say that every heterosexual couple would raise children better than every homosexual couple. And that is all you have addressed. You haven't bothered with what I said. Just like pretty much everything else in social science, there is going to be a range of healthiness amongst all hetero and homo sexual couples. So what? Are you implying that because in one instance a particular homosexual couple might do better than a particular heterosexual couple that we should encourage all homosexual couples to raise children? That's fallacious reasoning. Also, just because some couples don't or can't have kids is not a good enough reason to mean we should redefine marriage. It would be a problematic enterprise to legally show that a couple can't have kids or won't have kids in the future before they are allowed to marry. It's stupidly inefficient to try. To rephrase, the reasons why society allows infertile couples to marry are pragmatic as opposed to being related to the reasons for society encouraging marriage. The onus is on you to prove otherwise.

As for the harmfulness of homosexuals, I truly am suprised you don't accept it, because even the briefest investigation into the topic shows it quite clearly. For instance, check out this highly referenced report http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0075.html
or
http://www.narth.com/docs/risks.html
or
http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Gay_bowel_syndrome
or
this french government report on the topic
http://64.233.179.104/translate_c?hl=en&u=http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/12/dossiers/mission_famille_enfants.asp

There are ample evidence (there is much much more)

The homosexual life style is a harmful activity, both physically and emotionally (even in places like the netherlands where it's accepted as normative). It is no suprise this isn't a great environment for kids. It is hardly a great lesson to teach them that when you love someone you harm them.

Grey
That's your argument? That homosexuals pass on aids? A few points of sanity.
1) Aids can be spread through all forms of penetrative sex. That means heterosexuals get aids too.
2) Heterosexuals spread things like VD. So according to your logic we should ban all heterosexuals from raising kids because of their unhealthy lifestyle.
3) Safe sex practices make the risks pretty low.
4) These very odd arguments tend to overlook one inconvenient fact. Heterosexuals have anal sex. Therefore every article to which you've linked applies to them as well. So according to you the vast majority of us are a danger to society - maybe you should leave. We normal Australians aren't safe for you to be around. :)

Now to your other odd assertions.

I have shown that some homosexuals are better at being parents than some heterosexuals. Yet you would deny them the right to raise kids. That is illogical & irrational Grey.

next your claim that changing the definition of marriage will adversely affect society. Prove it! All I need do is point to the societies where that redefinition has taken place. No great negative effects. Except from bigots who didn't get their way.

Your turn. Show me the evidence that it WILL negatively affect society. Not maybe, not possibly, but WILL.

I'll handle your other "arguments" [?] in my next post.
May I suggest you try something? When you apply a principle to homosexuals, apply it to heterosexuals as well in your own mind & see if you find it acceptable. Indeed see if you wouldn't conden those same principles outright as bias if they were applied to all heterosexuals.

“…do you really believe … That's breathtaking...”

So this is evidence Alan? Fine to claim it - you have that right. I simply ask the basis for the claim. Perhaps enunciate the details? Some appropriate citations or references would also assist. I’ve seen other of your posts (and even agreed with them!) so I know you are capable.

”As to your question Reason, ... and who makes decisions for them in the case they are incapacitated. Kind of a pointless question really”

Thanks Alan, yes the question may have been answered. Kind of you to be so polite in pointing it out. Still, it is about the level of your comments on this thread. Though I do believe there are issues with superannuation and similar. Can you or anyone clear this up or deny there are issues?

As to your recent post, I think Bosk has negated any claim of evidence there also…

I cannot understand the ignorance displayed by people who claim that homosexuality will threaten the fabric of society. Try reasoning it this way. Are you going to change your persuasion if same-sex union is allowed? Do you consider that your persuasion is liable to shift if enough same-sex couples are recognised? If not, then what is to be afraid of?

Claims that children will be ‘influenced’ and ‘confused’ holds as much water as it does when referenced to your own preference. The worst that could occur is that ‘divorce’ may increase in the same-sex community as it also finds it more difficult to remain together ‘for life’. Or more people will be comfortable instead of suspicious of those different to them.

Boaz… What to say? Your lack of compassion reveals the truth of your faith. You vilify, chastise and berate any who don’t fit the BD mould of piety. What would you do if a same-sex couple moved in next door? I shudder to think what kind of a ‘neighbour’ you would be… Doesn’t that word appear in some quote from Jesus.. involving 'love' I believe? What a hypocrite you are…

The studies presented are from right-wing propaganda sites, and are misrpresented, as the extreme right wing tend to do. One must take their word for it, and look at snipets which could easily be taken out of context, with no notes on the sample, and no comparative heterosexual data.

For example, the life expectancy study is dated, and was never meant to be a representative sample of all gay men(actuarial tables were not used)...

http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/30/6/1499

There is no such thing as gay man's bowel syndrome. It's not called that anymore, and should never have been called that. Heterosexuals can get this condition just as easily.

Heterosexuals spread diseases too. There is no causal link between being gay and HIV/AIDS or other diseases. Sex itself spreads sexually transmitted illnesses. Scapegoating gays for it, is like scapegoating Jews for disease, crime, etc., as the Nazis did in their propaganda film, the "Eternal Jew". It's like the Ku Klux Klan pointing the finger at blacks. This type of garbage is best left to the folk in your Mississippi trailer park, for conversation during book burnings or cock fighting, or while practicing one's target shooting at "vermits".

Professional organisations such as The American Academy of Pediatrics are in support of gay parenting.

As for the promiscuous. Well, one would have to look at the sample, who it was and in where it was taken. Where is the comparative hetero data? I can show just as many studies that indicate gay men are not promiscuous.
Besides, the very promiscuous, gay or straight, are not the ones who will want to be married.

@ Reason and SneekyPete

I shuddeer to think about a homosexual couple moving in next door to me. I certainly would not take some kind of hostile action against them, that would not help anyone.

I would probably move. Seriously. That is how important the issue is to me.

There are only 2 reasonalbe approaches to such a situation. (when you hold a view of the issue such as mine)

1/ Move
2/ Remain

In both cases there is one other possible action available, and that is the political and social persuasion one.

I'm taking that path here. I seek to persuade and to influence opinion.

@ Fletch 'tired old argument' ? err..your missing the point cobber.

"Justification" of deviate behavior on grounds 'I was born this way'

is justification of ALL deviate behavior for the same reason.

All a person has to say is "I know I was born this way" and viola they can be accepted.

This applies to Paedophile, Bestial and Incestuous behavior.

The issue should not be the 'alleged cause' but the behavior itSELF.

Think about this. When a man has an orgasm, is it primarily for 'pleasure' ? of course not, SEMEN is produced, which is one half of the baby making picture.
Now...the idea of twisting this beautiful aspect of our humanity and perverting it into anal or oral sex with another male is to my mind disgusting. I reject the idea of 'love' in this connection.

Why does 'love' HAVE to involve SEX ? why can two males or females not love each other WITHOUT sex ? problem solved.

Knowing full well that our reproductive/biological urges are BASED ON REPRODUCTION irrespective of how much pleasure the 'trying many times' aspect gives us, you cannot argue reasonably or logically that male/male or female/female sexual activity is not a distortion of our humanity, its a simple self evident fact. Males can NEVER make babies with males.

One thing I forgot to mention, the narth link left out some points. It didn't say that straight women can get cervical cancer from the same virus that gives gay men anal cancer.

Rates may be higher in terms of mental illness according to this or that study, but that is not a causal link between being gay and mental illness. Rates would have to be much higher. There have been studies in the U.S. which show some ethnic groups have higher rates compared to whites. That isn't a link either.

Here is a link to what the AAP has to say about gay parenting...

http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics%3b109/2/339

Boaz: It's not really so horrible for two men to sexually make use of one another's bodies. Body parts perform multiple functions, not just one or two. For example, your fingers will pick your nose, put food in your mouth, help to build things, make hand gestures, or type on a computer keyboard. Your legs will help you to run to jump, or kick a ball or kick an enemy, or to swim or dance.

The sex act seems to perform many functions as well. It leads to reproduction very few times. When it does, that is not necessarily a good thing. The ability to reproduce will not elevate one to be a great achiever in this society.

lol@Boaz, Monty Python's the Meaning of Life, "every sperm is sacred". I already answered your questions about 5 times up the page BOAZ. Some gay men do have love without sex. You just didn't bother to ask them. Many straight couples have the kind of pornographic sex that you are into, including the stuff that you mentioned above.

Which porno videos did you see gay men having oral sex BOAZ? You took special attention to notice the sperm going down their necks. That is interesting that you had the time to do this. If it repulses you so much, stop watching them. Is that what you think this is all about?

Will someone sensible please bring this post back to order. Game over. I will ignore BOAZ from here on. Lets stop filth from the Eternal Brethren and get on with decent gay civil unions.

BOAZ_David wrote: "When a man has an orgasm, is it primarily for 'pleasure' ? of course not, SEMEN is produced".

Arousal clearly plays a large role in motivating intercourse. Moreover, those who suggest procreation is the only legitimate purpose of human sexual intimacy are living in a fantasy world of their own contrivance. Studies on human sexual behaviour, starting with Kinsey, as well as the lived experiences of real people the world over, belie such nonsense. In this context, pagan3000 makes the apt point that many biological structures, functions & behaviours serve multiple purposes.

BOAZ_David also wrote: "perverting [sexual intimacy] into anal or oral sex with another male is to my mind disgusting". The actual perversion here is BOAZ_David trying to debase same-sex relationships as nothing more than mere homogenital acts. The lived reality of committed same-sex couples, best evidenced in recent submissions to the HREOC 'Same-Sex : Same Rights' Inquiry ( http://www.hreoc.gov.au/samesex/submissions.html ) show that they are & can be so much more. Visceral objections to homogenital acts steadfastly ignores that many heterosexuals engage in similar non-vaginal acts. Those who condemn the former but remain eerily silent on the latter are disingenuous at best.

Ultimately, the shrill claims of the frantic homo-hater lobby, on what consenting adult partners across all persuasions do in their bedrooms, are irrelevant to the issue at hand: equivalent treatment of committed same-sex partners under Australian law.

For those who think I'm of the 'sex is JUST for reproduction/every sperm is sacred' ..I don't know how you got that from my reasoning.

I used the reasoning that the semen produced during sexual activity is what provides the framework, which gives the primary intention of sexual activity. Does this mean we cannot enjoy 'non' procreatively intended sex ? of course not, but it does show the central point of sexual union.

Semen dribbling down necks ? Fletch, where in the world did you get THAT from? I didn't mention it.

Oh..by the way, for the poster who tried the old "Attack is the best form of defense/lets attribute this and that to Boaz to weaken his argument" -sorrrrry.. it aint gonna work !

Southpark does have some very deep social commentary, INCLUDING showing up some of the pathetic shallowness in much of contemporary Christianity. But yes, it does go over the top at times, I don't find the 'turd' character as having any value to the show whatsoever.

If so called gay people did NOT have sex with the same gender, then I would have no issue with them. Loving other people, caring for them etc is not a 'sin', but sex with the same kind IS.

No one has in the slightest shown any flaws in my reasoning that:

"Anyone can claim 'I was born this way' to justify other types of deviate sexual behavior"

So my argument stands firm.

BD
Quote "No one has in the slightest shown any flaws in my reasoning that:

"Anyone can claim 'I was born this way' to justify other types of deviate sexual behavior"

I'm afraid what people do or do not claim is irrelevant BD. I'm going on facts NOT what people claim. People are born homosexual or heterosexual. Child molesters on the other hand are the product of child molesters in their past. They are NOT born that way no matter what they claim. There is NO evidence to support any such claim but there is to support the FACT that homosexuals are born not made.

Conclusion: Anyone CANNOT TRUTHFULLY claim that they were born that way. Only those for whom there is evidence which supports it.
So your argument does NOT stand.

Want to point out the scriptures that support your contention that homosexuality is a "sin"? I would say that they would just be more verses taken out of context. Sorry BD but in the end your oposition to homosexuals is baseless.

As I have trawled through the statements made, I am appauled with both the lack of Christian charity, and common humanitarianism displayed by detractors in the debate. We are all humans, of God's creation, whether you believe in God or not.

What we should be doing is extending the hand of friendship to homosexual people, not denying them basic human rights, which we have fought for for a hundred years. Sexual preferance is a decision God makes, not parents. Who would willingly be homosexual? certainly not I this section of of our community cop the rough end of the pineapple in all legal cases, as my friend has recently. After a 10 year relationship, does anyone here know what percentage of hetrosexual relationships last for a decade?

I am a conservative on this issue, at least I was until I actually met and liked a homosexual lady, before knowing her sexual preference. I am in the reality position, not the theoryetical one, and I can assure the general population that homosexual people don't wan't to rape and pilage the general community, all they desire is to be recognised by the rest of us as equal, not inferior, or superior, merely equal, in my Christian belief that is the least we can do to recognise the homosexulal contribution to our nation.

How do we tell whether or not any of our past Prime Ministers were homosexual, or bi-sexual? their contribution will still be recognised. As an Australian community we need to chill out and rate people on merit, sexual preference should not be an issue.

Good point Shonga. As I said before, I'm not bothering to talking to the lunatics now, I'm just ignoring them.

This topic is about truth commitment, love and gay civil union, not about sex abuse, lust, or anything else.

In order to do this, we have to end these stupid secrets that suppress the whole story of Australia.

Few of you know the real story of convict colonial Australia. You would be quite surprised at the humanity in the stories as well as the cruelty and unfairness.

"Homosexual Marriage" was legally recognised in NSW when we were a colony from 1788 to the early 1800s. It was a single sex convict colony. It is documented that various wedding ceremonies were conducted in Sydney, Norfolk Island and Port Aurthur with the full blessings from the colonial Governor. So Sydney has been there and done that before. There is more information in the book "The Fatal Shore" written by Robert Hughes. Books by Garry Wotherspoon have even more documentation of such transactions in early Australian history.

This was more of a function of improvising a situation where there were no women to marry, and the authorities knew that it was unhealthy to be lonely. The men wanted to love each other. That is all they had. Far better for the authorities to allow them to love each other than to have them be violent and insubordinate.

It is a pitty that the convict cononial authorities had more compassion 200 years ago than modern day Australia.

Gay civil union is, however, different, as it is not improvising in a situation where there are no women. It is the real thing, the ultimate dream for the couple, and they have no heterosexual aspirations or regrets.

The only difference now in "freedom" is that our regime lacks compassion and understanding.

They failed to censor the real history of Australia. We deny the humanity in our own history too much. Until we recognise our humanity, our entire country will remain lost and empty.

In the article I refered to earlier, the Liberal MP for Cairns, has known a couple who have been together for 40 years. One half of that couple fears that if he dies first, his mate, partner will not recieve the war widows pension. Which would naturally be afforded to a hetrosexual couple in the same situation. As far as I am concerned, if you are willing to lay your life on the line for your country in a time of war, you and your partner should be afforded the benefits of that courage. Those who would deny these people because of their sexual preference, and similtaneously live the life these brave men and women fought for, are hypocrites in my eyes. My apologies to DB who I have a great deal of respect for, however when situations are broken down to simplistic fact, rather tha religious theory common sense dictates that homosexual/hetrosexual couples are no different, they both have a committment to each other, both are unable to control their sexual preference, which leads me as a rational, logical human being to believe, we were all created equal, and in my interperation of God's law, that means that we do not discriminate between black, white or brindle, race coulour or creed, this should be the end of the discussion.

Bosk is basing his defence on FACTS – let’s examine his logic

1. People are born homosexual or heterosexual.
2. Child molesters on the other hand are the product of child molesters in their past.
3. Conclusion: Anyone CANNOT TRUTHFULLY claim that they were born that way.
4. Only those for whom there is evidence which supports it.

SO Bosk and co.,

Is it possible that a child molester be also a same-sex enthusiast?

In your "book of life", how was the first child molester originated?

Is there a possibility that a child brought up in a gay environment could also become one as a matter of “accepted” choice and not simply based on genetics (as you put it)?

If there is a soupçon – even a vague link between molestation and same-sex; why should society trust same-sex existence while despising child molesters?

[i.e. No one wants to live next to a child molester – why should we live next to homos?]

As for biblical references they are aplenty - starting with Genesis 2:

18 The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him."
20 … But for Adam no suitable helper was found.
21 So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh.
22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.
23 The man said, "This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called 'woman, for she was taken out of man."
24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh

And for the evolutionists - Where does homosexuality fit with your theory of survival of the fitest or even natural selection intra-species sexual attraction

Coach and Boaz david, if this is where belief in God gets you, I'm glad I have no such beliefs.
Where do you get this certainty about who is good and who is bad? Have you no humility? No dark sides to your own character? Are you so unshakeably sure that you and your beliefs never do any harm?
I previously pointed out on this thread that most child molesters are heterosexual males who molest little girls whom they are often, tragically, related to, and if this fact is not accepted as a reason to fear heterosexual marriage, then its hard to see its relevance in supporting fear of homosexual civil unions.
However, while making it clear I do not accept any parrallel between child abuse and the private sexual practices of consenting adults, I recommend you see a remarkable film called "The Woodsman" about a child molester (yes, heterosexual) played brilliantly by Kevin Bacon who is struggling manfully with his dark side. It is a film that insists you see child molesters for what they are, flawed, struggling human beings. Wasn't it Jesus Christ who said something about hating the sin but loving the sinner? All I get from you guys is hate.
By the way, my (very) heterosexual husband was raised by a gay father, as were his 2 brothers and sister. None are gay, and none are prejudiced against gays either because they have seen how little someone's sexual preference ( for consenting adults) matters when looked at in the context of their full personality. As people they are just as much a mixture of flaws and virtues as people raised by more outwardly conventional parents - no better, no worse.

coachie
I am really astounded by your ignorance of the context of scripture.

Let's take a look at the historical context of the creation myth of Genesis shall we? The creation myth is not only concerned with the creation of a world but also the creation of a tribe of people - the hebrews. That being so it's hardly surprising that the story concentrates on unions which produce offspring - That's the whole intent of the story. So of course in that context they don't mention homosexual unions. That doesn't mean that this story has ANYTHING to do with homosexuality.

In fact the entire passage is totally silent on the question of homosexual unions. Try again coachie but do your homework first.

As for your strange question concerning children becoming homosexuals because they've been brought up by one - are you serious? The vast majority of homosexuals were raised by heterosexuals. Did it make them heterosexuals? No! Then why should being raised by homosexuals increase the likelyhood of a child becoming homosexual? It won't!

You then go on to argue that "If there is a soupçon – even a vague link between molestation and same-sex; why should society trust same-sex existence while despising child molesters?"

By this logic if there is even a vague suspicion or a vague link between fundamentalist christians & child abuse then we shouldn't tolerate fundamentalist christians. Would you agree with that? Then why do you pick on homosexuals? Oh I forgot - because you don't like them. That's why! Be a man & admit it coachie. Stop pretending it has something to do with scripture.

Bosk? I'm sorry, but you are being intellectually dishonest. Lets review...
I talk about the unhealthy lifestyle of homosexuals, with plenty of references (Sorry pagan3000, but your attempt to poison the well about them being on 'right-wing propaganda' is lame. All those articles are heavily referenced from scientific research and somehow, I don't think the french government is right-wing? - Just another example of a hopelessly biased person trying to shut out the truth I guess). This was in response to you asking me for evidence. There is plenty more out there if you are bothered with reality. There are plenty of other problems mentioned in those resources that are not aids.

FYI, safe sex practices do very little for the risks of most of the things referenced in those reports. If you bothered to search out the truth, you would know that.

Heterosexual sex is not inherently unhealthy. Homosexual sex is. That is the difference you are missing with your moronic absolutist notions.

I have been looking at general outcomes, averages if you like and it is easy to see that it is not only in societies best interest to not encourage homosexual families, but that there are no good reasons for allowing it.

Nothing in your response has even addressed the argument I made.

FYI, you are the one who is trying to redefine an institution that has been in place for thousands of years. You need to prove that it will improve society and not harm society, not the other way round. But I have yet to see any real effort on your part.

Most people with AIDS on this planet aquired this through heterosexual sex and most of these are young women in Africa. The theory to justify that AIDS has one orientation is a lie. You are using incorrect data to justify this arguement. This disease has no orientation, it is just that in Australia, gay men are responsible enough to contain it to themselves successfully. Why don't some of you bigots just admit that you just hate gay men and we can all move on to other posts to more interesting topics. You can stay here and rant and rave to yourselves to a lather like a festering bucket of rabid Gollums.

Not that any of you would give them credit for 20 years of behaviour modification. If they didn't do this, we would be just like Africa as it would be uncontained and out of control. You are very lucky to have the Australian gay community, yet all you ever do is bag them, overhelmed by obessive hate.

Some of the arguements are really scraping at the bottom of the Gollum bucket. Desperately parroting the Bible, I wonder if this will go Latin now like an Exocism from Opus Dei? If that doesn't work, distort statistics. If that doesn't work, go back to good old bigrotry playing the blame game. If that doesn't work, attack people personally and make accusations.

I think it is time for Gollum to see a therapist. The topic is on Civil Union for commitment, between two consenting adults in their private lives. It is not about AIDS, the Church, natural selection, and the human population which is growing out of control into an environmental catastrophe.

In terms of strength, Alexander the Great, was no weakling. Neither would I call Leonardo Da Vinci, or Michaelangelo useless. All had homosexual relationships. Useless? I hardly think so. They helped shape western civilization as we know it.

I diverge. Too much diverging on this topic. This is about Civil Union. If you want a posting, stick to the topic without using stupid defamatory comments.

Alan Grey

All sex is risky. That's why safe sex practice is vital regardless of sexual preference.

FYI

Many heterosexual couples engage in anal sex. This has been pointed out to you on this thread before. Take your head out of the sand and your imagination out of the bedrooms of gays and lesbians (not all engage in anal sex BTW), and live and let live.

I'm sure that no-one is as interested in your sex life as you appear to be in that of homosexuals.

Very suspicious indeed.

Perhaps you protest too much.

Scout,
As usual, a common sense approach, refreshing to read, please keep up the good work, I look forwatd to your posts.
Regards, Shaun.

Alan Grey: What I object to are the anti-gay right wing making illness into a moral issue, only when illness affects gays. Gays are the group they don't like.

Gays are as diverse as any other group, and there are no generalizations to be made about a gay lifestyle. Gay people do many of the same things in their sex lives as straight people do, as has been pointed out here many times.

Grey
Your links, such as they were, delt with things like AIDS. I and everal other posters have shown countless times that heterosexuals spread AIDS just as efficently as homosexuals. Do you care? No! Same old tripe repeated endlessly.

Your links also alleged a link between homosexual sex & "Gay men's bowel syndrome" How is that spread? I presume by anal sex. Yet heterosexuals have anal sex too. Do we have straight women's bowel cancer? No! Why? Because the compilers of the report were biased. The same with so many others that you quote. As for your lame crack about the French government - it might not be right wing but many politicians certainly are.

But let's say they are all true for argument's sake. What difference would that make? They would be engaging in activities that endanger only themselves not society at large. Smokers endanger the whole of society more than any of these so called risks yet you wouldn't ban smokers from getting married.

Why the hypocracy Grey.

Oh and by the way I have shown that gay marriages aren't harmful to society by pointing out that several countries already have them to no ill effect. Next time check your facts. But I'm afraid that you & truth have long since parted ways.

Although it's off the topic, and other writers have already pointed out that the overwhelming majority of people with HIV infection in the world have acquired it through heterosexual sex, could I just make the point that the idea that homosexual sex is inherently riskier than heterosexual sex can only be partly true. For at least half the human population homosexual sex is infinitely safer than heterosexual. (Although this is a gross simplification: what people do sexually with each other is pretty diverse in my experience).

If AIDS is God's message about sexual preference, it's a rather confusing one, because he's saying one thing to men and another to women.

Shonga

Thank you so much - you have no idea how much I needed your vote of confidence - especially as I hold a lot of respect for your posts.

Snout - spot on have been thinking the same thing :-)

Clearly Grey is just shooting himself in the foot in attempting to denigrate gays.