@ 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.