"So what position are you adopting, Manik? Just because you personally are not throwing the faggots on the pyre, doesn’t mean that you are not complicit in the burning."

Sorry w, on this topic you may appear to have a concrete agenda that would prevent any meaningful dialogue. Not adopting a polarised view according to the already-set parameters (by previous comments) puts me in neither camp...

Snout, thanks for the link. It doesn't appear to contain any current scholarship on the issue (ie post 1996). It would be nice to see some objective information on the topic, as the article that you have provided was written by "a lesbian living with a female partner and raising three children" (http://www.narth.com/docs/patterson.html).

MaNiK, thanks for the link to NARTH critique of Patterson’s methodology. I’m not sure who NARTH are (they don’t give much detail about this on their site), but they raise reasonable considerations to bear in mind in assessing the validity of studies, including possible sampling flaws and researcher bias. Patterson herself appears to be quite candid in acknowledging these limitations. NARTH’s apparent critique of her work because she is a lesbian may be intended to point to potential researcher bias, but unfortunately reads as an ad hominem (ad feminam?) argument.

Assessing the credibility of sites on the net is a constant problem. NARTH may be quite correct in pointing out common pitfalls in psychosocial research, but they have identified precisely zilch research to falsify Patterson’s conclusions. Her paper was published for a general readership by the American Psychological Association, the peak professional body for psychologists in the USA. As a non-psychologist (I’m a medico) I’m open to the possibility that this professional group may have been infiltrated by nefarious political interests with little interest in safeguarding their scientific credibility. I’ve therefore checked the position statement of my own profession in the USA. You can too. It’s more recent (2002) – you are quite correct in raising an eyebrow at a decade old paper, but sometimes these are valid because there’s nothing new to say. http://www.nlm.nih.gov/cgi/medlineplus/leavemedplus.pl?theURL=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.psych.org%2Fnews_room%2Fpress_releases%2Fadoption_coparenting121802.pdf

Here’s a more comprehensive link on the subject from an organization well known to be biased against the needs of children, the American Academy of Pediatrics.

http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics;109/2/341

It links to numerous references remarkable in their consistency in concluding that it's the quality of the parent child relationship rather than the gender and sexual orientation of the parents that are significant in child development and adjustment.

Richard Prendergast is uncomfortable with the Vatican’s statement describing gay unions as doing “violence” to children because he is worried the language might offend the delicate sensibilities of homosexuals, which runs counter to his personal conception of Christian charity. MaNiK thinks the statement lacks tact. My objection is that it’s complete and utter ignorant tosh.

Now, I support the right of people to believe whatever misinformed rubbish they like. I also agree with Gekko that the Catholic Church has the right to decide who is and isn't welcome as members of their club.

But when the Church puts out a statement such as this, the intention is to influence public policy. As such, they are fair game for debate. When they talk crap, they need to be told.

Gekko - you seem to forget, the whole point of Christianity is inclusivity - "just love each other".

In my experience gay people have a much greater undertanding of love and inclusiveness than most clerics who use their self-proclaimed positions to spout poison and spread fear - which is the true opposite of love (hate being merely a symptom of fear).

Gekko, your private/public distinction is a furphy, and I suspect you know it.

All organisations, whether public or "private", exist in the context of a greater society, and operate within its conventions. Their choices about what rules they make and who they exclude are made with respect to external law and custom.

It's not acceptable in Australia to exclude groups of people based on their hair colour, handedness or ethnicity. This is a value which all the “respectable” religions observe. In most areas, it also extends to sexuality, both real and perceived.

In your distinction, the local netball team is a private organisation. All that’s required to join is a desire to play netball. For the netball club to discriminate on the grounds of the player’s sexuality (or the player’s parents’ sexuality) is neither legal nor acceptable in Australia. To join your local church, all that’s required is a desire to worship its god.

Except if you’re gay: then an additional entry requirement applies, that you give up your partner, your (god-given) sexuality, and a whole lot of your non-church social networks and relationships. If you’re already a member and discover that you’re gay, religions suddenly determine that your belief is not enough.

All the laws which apply to Telstra and the Queensland University of Technology (host of OLO) also apply to Mardi Gras, so your example is way off the mark. You *can* get onto the board of the Mardi Gras. I urge you to start working on your application now – it would require you to familiarise yourself with some of the exclusion and spite that gay people deal with daily. Take a look at the submissions to the HREOC Inquiry to see what I mean: http://www.hreoc.gov.au/samesex/submissions_index.html

As I said before, it’s a mystery to me why gay people would want to join a church that rejects them, but many do. Do religious people think it is better or worse for gay people to believe in god? If yes, why do you reject these believers? Where do you think they should go?

Father Richard Prendergast has challenged Church doctrine in a diplomatic manner, but dilpomacy is not enough.
The Church's teaching is that sex is for procreation. Any sexual activity that precludes procreation is condemned or at best avoided. Unless and until the Church changes its attitude no amount of sweet talk to gays and lesbians will achieve anything.
The ultimate question to be asked is where did this teaching come from and is it tenable.