Clearly you dont listen West: I said lets end it now. The last twenty posts have really been a waste of time and space

The last twenty posts may have been a waste for you sneekeepete but they have not been a waste of time for me. They have served to confirm my perspective.

I'm clearly not as 'au fait' with these issues as you are, mjpb.

Could you please point me towards the data behind your assertion that homosexuals have above average earnings.

You could also put me in touch with the homosexual party ("they enjoy representatives in Federal Parliament") because I'd like to take them to task for their underachievements.

While you're at it, you might also tell me who represents homosexuals on the High Court, because first, we require our judges to be impartial, and second, the only homosexual judge on the High Court always absents himself from cases on which he has previously expressed an opinion.

w,

Your serious question was:

“I'm clearly not as 'au fait' with these issues as you are, mjpb.

Could you please point me towards the data behind your assertion that homosexuals have above average earnings.”

I originally got the information from a Christian source so I have hunted down one you will accept.

http://www.gaytoz.com/bHomo_Economics.asp

UK:
Average income was £22,130 compared to £19,400 for the general population.
There were higher levels of employment, and ownership of pensions and shares, than the national average
27% of respondents had degrees or equivalents compared to 9% average

USA:
91% are college or University graduates.

What I originally read was a comparison of homosexuals with African Americans who also claim minority status. African Americans displayed severe financial disadvantage even when 'perks' of marriage that homosexuals seek sympathy for missing out on aren't considered.

mjpb so you are saying homosexuals are smarter than the general population. Figures are useful things to quote. Christianity breeds poverty please check out any figures concerning Rawanda if you dont think so. All you are demonstrating is smart people allow homosexuals to be themselves so in educated groups homosexuals dont hide the fact that they are gay. Obviously in low skilled groups , ignorance and a lack of education would make some people more hostile to homosexuals and so not allow them to be of their own nature. Be careful with numbers because Christians are extremely over represented in child abuse cases even compared with the entire non-christian population. Focus on clergy you may be suprised what motivates a man to turn his back on nature and remain asthetically celibate. Often I have heard so called 'Epiphanies' and thought that man is obviously Gay and afraid of his mother.

Thanks, mjpb. It’s interesting how the income statistics for gays and lesbians always seem to have been gathered by marketing organisations trying to talk up the buying power of their target market. The sampling in the source you mention is questionable (Londoners have a higher income than most Brits anyway), but there’s a consistent pattern of marketing companies in many countries claiming that the pink market has higher incomes and (more importantly for marketers) higher disposable incomes.

Does anyone know of a well-designed study comparing the incomes of, say, childless same-sex couples with comparable childless straight couples?

Naturally having a higher income would be a valid reason to discriminate against homosexuals, in the same way we currently discriminate against company directors, lawyers, heiresses and residents of Toorak and Point Piper ;-)

Not quite sure what point you’re trying to make with the comparison of African Americans and gays. Are you arguing that because one group fares badly it’s OK to discriminate against another?

Claims by same-sex couples for equal rights are about just that – equal rights. I guess it’s easy to focus on the money, because this is a very transparent measure of discrimination. When equal rights are indeed granted to same-sex couples (yes when, not if), there will be financial winners and losers.

However everyone (even you mjpb) will gain from having a more equitable and inclusive society.

My other questions were also serious, if rhetorical. Since you’re ignoring them, let me spell it out for you.

There are no parliamentarians who represent homosexual interests, in the same way that the CDP and Family First represent christian interests. All the homosexual MPs I am aware of represent their constituents and their parties. While apparently it’s OK for Tony Abbott, among others, to say he’s a catholic first and a Member of Parliament second, there are no gay MPs who put their sexuality before their parliamentary duties.

Nor is there a High Court judge who puts his sexuality before his judicial duties.

On the point about homosexuals enjoying representation in parliament and in the High Court, you stand corrected.