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.