Apparently in Australia we’re all _born_ equal, but those of us who turn out to be gay wind up paying higher taxes http://newsstore.fairfax.com.au/apps/browseArchive.ac?sy=nstore&cls=6627 (subscription), and getting smaller benefits from the health care, superannuation, aged care and social security systems.

The only commonwealth law which specifically mentions same-sex relationships is the anti-terrorist legislation, which, to use a phrase much-loved by the Prime Minister, sends a pretty clear message about what our Government thinks of us.

As long as these inequalities exist in law, hate and homophobia will continue to thrive. See the editorial in today’s Hobart Mercury for an example of how this is playing out on Tasmania’s west coast: http://www.news.com.au/mercury/oursay/

Hard to argue against ?

Sure..in an amoral relativistic world where he who speaks loudest speaks longest.

But in a society were we jail paedophiles and frown on men or women having sex with animals, -do we jail them ?

No..its EASY to argue against equality for certain_behaviours and we do it daily. Our laws are a constant argument "against" equality for many types of behavior.

A man may be a perennial speeder at heart, but given enough fines and maybe licence cancellations, its unlikely he will PUBLICALLY continue his speeding behaviour.

An alchoholic is a 'drunk' at heart and by nature, but given a few near death experiences, its just possible that he will wake up, join AA and only 'be' an alcoholic at 'heart' rather than at the behaviour level.

Just so, any person who wishes to be sexually involved with a member of his/her own gender.. can be that at 'heart' if they choose to do so, but I caution against recognizing such behaviour as in any way 'normal' or 'acceptable'. We need to see it as it is, not normal, and those who feel they are this way, should exercise the same restraint that an alcoholic does, or a person with a preference for pre-pubescent children who also claims he was born 'that way'.

Being 'born' with 6 fingers does not make it normal, it emphasizes the normality of 4 fingers and a thumb.

Its possible for people to live their lives without sex, many nuns and priests do it. The bible even encourages this so people can be free to serve God without the problems of family life. (But it also underlines that marriage is a wonderful institution)

The author proposes the question in a way which invites a sympathetic response, deliberately so I'm sure, but this is simply a device to direct debate to an outcome of his preference.

A relativistic society speaks of "same sex couples"... the Bible speaks of homosexual behavior as "an abomination to God".
We report...you decide.

Boaz... you speak of amorality.

What exactly, is the precise problem, of same sex couples? This is really, the heart of the matter.

Aside from the bible's mentioning of them being an abomination, what is the problem here?

Bear in mind - we are not talking about paedophilia. We are not talking about animals. You can claim that they will be next on the hit list all you want, but for just a moment, look at the here and now.

What exactly is the problem with whatever two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home?

So, if people decide to live together, in this relationship, and aren't harming anyone, why is it permissible to discriminate against them?

You speak of what is 'normal.' Ten fingers, ten toes. Presumably a church goer. Has a nine to five job. Fits in with others, and is socially acceptable. Most would own a car. Probably have a dog.

At what point do we draw a circle around them, and say "this is what we want. this is normal."

Who is 'we' anyway. Who gets to decide this? Boaz, you speak of the harshness of the muslim faith if it were to gain sway in the western world.

Okay - if I buy that - then I can only assume what makes the western faith better is it's acceptance of liberal ideals - tolerance, if you will. Some consider this tolerance to be a weakness in the face of a foe - perhaps it is - much like love can be.

Does that mean you should get rid of it?

Fear of a gay planet. As much as some gays might jokingly wish that, it could never actually happen. Hetero men (not all) are at the vanguard of this line of twisted logic. I personally look forward to the day we return to a matriarchal society - its already begun to happen. Now thats a real possibility and dont alot of men fear that more than the gay threat? A no-brainer. Get over it!

There are probably more than a few choirboys around with a different attitude to the moral proclivity of some members of the clergy, not to mention the reputation of certain high profile evangelists in the USA.

Once again a basic failure to differentiate acts between consenting adults and acts with a direct impact on others who cannot give consent (OK BD's fasination with animal acts is different but lets put that one down to preventing distastefull experiences for animals).

I find extremist monothesism unnatural, an abomination and a likely danger to my physical well being as they struggle to bring on the end.

I've been directly threatened by some - coach recently suggested that I will burn in hell which if it was ever backed up is a pretty serious threat.

Can we bring in some laws that outlaw outward actions and expressions of the evil that lies in the hearts of these perverts?

Maybe some financial penalities for that kind of unnatural behaviour?

I'm somewhat more tolerant than the extremists, those who keep their religion to themselves or between consenting adults should be free to carry on with it. Those who flaunt their abominal beliefs in public and who threaten others should be shut down ASAP.

R0bert