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

Why should the Government condone practices that end up with many filling our hospitals with infectous diseases. Added to that it should be a basic human right that where possible a child should have a father and a mother. It is totally abnormal to have two women trying fulfil the roles of a father. Being tolerable of the intolerable does not benefit society and should not be encouraged by Governments. Experimenting with the traditional family has already filled our prisons with fatherless children and continuing to promote this lifestyle as the same as the traditional family will prove to be another social diaster.

Boaz I have read your posts with horror over the months and I find your current domestic arrangements abhorent and insulting so I don't think a man on his second marriage to a woman he converted in the wilds of Borneo is in any position to judge other people's domestic arrangements.

The author is right- it is about time that Australia stopped discriminating against same sex couples and that they are being granted the exact same rights as heterosexual couples including marriage and adoption of children and access to IVF.

In the US, I have heard, homosexual people are not even permitted to become organ donors!
I wonder how many dying homophobes would say “Thanks, but no thanks” to an organ coming from a homosexual person if that would mean it would give them access to a healthy future rather than death.

As soon as I was reading this OLO article I had a premonition that one of the religious posters would bring up ‘pedophilia’. BD you made it come true!
BD can’t you just skip some parts of that Bible, there are probably many parts in the Bible that state things you don’t adhere to because you don’t like them or disagree.
Fundamental Christians have something in common with Muslims- they both disapprove of homosexuality because it’s rejected in both the Bible and Koran.
BD, would you, as an activist, join with Muslims to protest against gay marriage?

Like TRTL and others I can’t see why homosexuality would be abnormal- the fact is that a proportion of the population all over the world (human and animal) is homosexual. It is natural, nothing to stress about.

Live and let live.

RObert, another opportunity for your wonderful sperm calculations! Don’t worry about hell, lol, I’m sure we can meet there, party with the gays and non-homophobes and listen to all the evil rock bands by the open fire.

Runner, the government should cater for everyone. Gays pay tax like everybody else and contribute the same to society.
Why should the government condone discrimination?
And Runner, many children are already being raised by same sex parents. Research indicates that these children are just as happy and healthy as children raised by heterosexual couples.

"But parental leave is only guaranteed to a male employee who is the spouse of a woman giving birth."

Too bad, tough, so the world is not an absolutely perfect place which bends over backwards for absolute gay equality (even if it is safer than bending over forward).

I know what would fix the problem - abandon the facile notion of parental leave so no one is "entitled" to it. That would suit me and give everyone "Equality". The dullards of uniformity and equality had not invented it when I was breeding kids and since my vasectomy I aint likely to qualify in the future.

Oh, another "inequality" - gays should not be allowed to adopt children -

Why - because being gay, whilst I would support anyones right to choose to be a mattress muncher or pillow biter, is still abnormal. Forming an "abnormal relationship" is incompatible with the best interests of adopted children, who should be placed in homes where the abnormality of homosexuality is less likely to occur.

This is just another angle on the gay marriage debate which was put to rest a while ago. I am not a catholic however George Pell's article on OLO gave the other side of the debate:

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=2207

If gay couples should quality for marriage entitlements what about couples who are friends? Not such a silly idea when one considers that the 'coupling' between friends is often longer term and probably more supportive that that so often seen in homosexual relationships where promiscuity is commonplace. Friends love one another, maybe not necessarily in a lustful way but so what?

HEROC has outlived any usefulness it may once have had. Why waste more money on this dinosaur of political correctness when there are so many areas of need that are struggling for resources?

pw2040, I don’t agree that changing the laws will bring an end to hate and homophobia, but I agree with you and the author that we should change them anyway. In a liberal democracy it is a fundamental principle that government should treat its citizens equally. That such discrimination by the authorities is countenanced in the 21st century demeans us all, not just the people who are hurt and humiliated by being denied rights and recognition the rest of us take for granted.

Some of the opinions posted in response to this article are disturbing, to say the least. When are certain members of our society going to grow up and accept people for who they are? If gay couples are not causing harm to others then the least we can do is ensure that they are treated as human beings. As has been previously posted - they contribute to society just like everyone else and just because 'we don't understand' does not allow us the liberty to treat them harshly and disallow the basic rights that the rest of us enjoy (and expect).

Equality should be hard to argue against- but it's not. Otherwise, how would we get the thrill of feeling superior to someone else.

Pell's article was hardly a compelling read. Nothing more than a restatement of the bleeding obvious: happy people live longer and have happy children.

"Damn, how come I didn't see that!" (smacking myself on the forehead) "It all makes sense now. Obviously gay people can't marry....?"

WTF?? Where did that come from?? Hang on, I must have missed something. Lets see....

People in a solid marriage are happy and live longer.. OK
Children of people in a solid marriage are happy and successful.. OK
Gay marriage would bring down civilization.. ?!

[Ooookay. Lets put down the argument and take two paces backwards- I think it's ticking....]

If anything, it suggests that if gay people were allowed to marry we'd have even more happy people.

And Cornflower, to answer your point. Allow gay people to marry and you then have a mechanism for deciding who does and does not qualify for the benefits the author specifies. Hell, even having unfair legislation that says only officially married gay people can access these benefits would, I think, be welcomed (after all, we don't hold hetero couples to this requirement).

Aside from the general beating of breasts from the people content to let religion do their thinking for them, the other commonly trotted out reason for continuing to leave gays out in the cold is children.

Reality says that, regardless of any anti-discrimination legislation, gays are unlikely to be able to adopt- supply and demand in our contraceptive society will proclude that. And the small percentage of gay people (already a small percentage of our society) that are going to want children is hardly going to make a difference in terms of the impact to society of fatherless children.

I think that gay people should not be allowed to raise children if they cant make them as a couple then they shouldn’t have them.
And that is with out today’s technology my sister in-law is gay and she is the nicest person on earth.
I don’t mean to offend any one, I cant belive we advertise it with a madigras with today’s drugs and lost children how much of a mess will a non gay young person on drugs or alcohol, if they woke next to the same sex they would really become messed up.
What about a young child growing up with gay parents and they are not gay but then again what’s normal, hay it will one day become a normal thing for society and all will be equal.
Do you think the gay gene will vanish if they were all left to each other and today’s technology was not used in helping them develop there own children.
one thing I belive god does not make mistakes, man has not perfected the understanding of genetics to say that it is dna.
It might be that the gene that we think makes someone gay is really a gene for a week minded person that loves the smell of

CR: “I know what would fix the problem - abandon the facile notion of parental leave so no one is "entitled" to it.”
That wouldn’t be a fix, it would be a disaster.

There are not many women and men who want to go back to the lifestyle of the fifties; today’s families generally exist of dual earners or solo family models.

Working parents, regardless of family make-up need the support of family, government and employer.
That’s why many countries have had to put ‘parental leave’ on their agenda.

Isn’t the way we treat our children an indication of our level of civilasation?

Isn’t the involvement of fathers in child rearing valuable?
Many fathers want to be involved in caregiving and many mothers want that support of their partner. The same goes for families that exist of two men or two women- both partners want to be involved.

Eventually, Australian government will have to cave in- many European Western countries have found solutions. Australia is lagging behind

I don't understand.

Why is homosexuality immoral? Why is it abnormal? Why does your sexual preference matter?

Boaz cites biblical evidence. Runner perpetuates old steryotypes with no basis in fact. Col Rouge seems rants without giving a reason.

I just don't understand.

I've known good parents and woeful parents. I've known devoted partners and cheaters. And I've known all spectrums in between. There has never been any correlation between sexuality and any of these traits.

I will always support the rights of all people, regardless of sexuality, to be treated equally in the eyes of the law. And, in light of the wonderful contribution to society given by some of my gay and lesbian friends, I can never equate homosexuality with immorality.

If you are going to discriminate against someone on the basis of their sexuality, you may as well discriminate aginst them for the colour of their skin as well.

Boo Hoo

Gay and lesbian couples do not have the same accord re health funds. Neither did I as a single heterosexual female. And then when we married, my husband and I did not recieve any special benefits - and nor should we.

My husband and I do not recieve the same funding as couples who have children. That's life (good one Ned Kelly).

I have paid my way all of my life re private health funds. I think that as a heterosexual female - who was once on an IVF program (for which I paid heaps!! out of my own pocket), I have the right to say that I abhor the notion that gay and lesbian couples have the right to IVF.

Yes, they can have the right to equality re health funds for the basics of life as I do - but not for artificially producing children. And before you get on your high horse - I withdrew from IVF when my number came up. I had a big re-think about the notion of artificially producing children and what that would cost the community.

I am very sorry that I started on the IVF program. I am pleased that I withdrew.

I think that we should learn to live with what we are given.

Thanks to all

Bugger it, I think I'll drop another baby, 4 is just not enough.

Let me get my calculator out. Yes, yes, my master plan is deliciously wicked. I can do this in spite of all those queer tax payers who get none of the perks, and come out smelling like roses.

Right BD.
Oh thats right, Leviticus. Don't you love that chapter:

Leviticus 20:09

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9qawc8h6w4

This video is for Christians and Non-Christians too

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrGA0VTgW7U

Leviticus 13:45-46

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lrf4_jPbOQc

Back to my master plan and my calculator.

Now, just to really piss all the fashion queens off in Oxford Street, it pays off to drop another baby. Good money in the baby bonus.

Then there are the payments in child support.

More money for family support.

More time off work.

More tax deductions.

More health care benefits.

More super benefits.

I am miles ahead of them. Oh this is such a great gloating point.

So when I buy my new home in Castle Hill, I can claim my first home buyers bonus, drop another baby, claim all of the above bonuses and time off work, and just to make it more fun, my wife and I will buy AWB SUVs to commute to the city and rent parking spots under slum housing.

Its a great deal. AWDs and 4WDs are a great tax dodge, Yes, they are still tax deductable.

Bugger it, I can really annoy my conservationist friends too.

Then I'll enrol the kids into private schools. Yes, the taxpayers can pay for the subsidies for that too, stuff them. The queers can't cash in on that one. Oh yeah, I've suddenly seen the light! What a great perk!

So the next time I go to Oxford Steet with my pram and they comment about my daggy clothes, I can arm myself with my babies with my wicked laugh: Rahahahahaha....you are paying for it all.....AAAAhahahahaha!

Lesbians always complain about limited access to health funds and other penalties they face. They do not mention the lesbian couples that both draw Centre link benefits as single Mums while living together. Gay and lesbians have an image problem that needs a lot of work. How many times do we hear of judges and magistrates hanging around public toilets waiting for casual sex? (Remember judge Yeldham and others). The Mardi-gras has become a sort of in your face exercise pushing the lifestyle of a minority group. It has become the place for drug dealers to unload speed and give the gays everlasting erections.
Gays, lesbians and Muslims have the common thread of aggressively pushing the agenda of a minority with their in your face behaviour and dress codes. The cries of persecution, bias and their “rent-a-crowd” demonstrations only isolate them further from the rest of society.

Sille, I am in a long term relationship and my partner has a lovely child. We went to Centrelink to say I have a full time job and she has a part time job so we no longer wish to have her on Single Parent Payments. They point blank said we don't recognise your relationship. So in that way we do not have the opportunity for income splitting nor medicare as a family, nor tax breaks that other families get, just to name a few things. But we do pay taxes and do volunteer work and we are going to become permanent foster parents for kids that have had a rough time and their biological parents can't take care of them. We are pretty bad eggs aren't we! However we are not both allowed to adopt these kids as a couple.

Oh and another point, we have never hung around public toilets, however unfortunately we have had to walk past them and get taunts from Heterosexual males who think they can make whatever comments they like to us. Yuk.

Nor have we ever attended the Mardi Gras....we must be very abnormal, we don't fit into the "gay picture" you have drawn yourself and are trying to tell others, but we aren't heterosexuals either. Where do we fit in?

This simple fact is that 'benefits' and 'tax-breaks' are provided by the government in order to encourage certain behaviours and relationships that have the clearest benefits to society.

Until you make the case the a homosexual civil union provides the same benefits to our society as a heterosexual one, then the case for 'equality' is an empty, vapid, rhetorical trick.

Sorry to disappoint you all, but Graeme Innes’ article wasn’t about behaviour, it was about rights.

It’s a very simple proposition: in a country where everyone is born equal, it’s not acceptable to withhold rights and benefits from some people because of their membership of a particular group. What they actually _do_ is not the issue here, it’s who they are.

Fortunately, and contrary to my posting above, today it looks like the Prime Minister is finally getting the message, in no small measure due to the efforts of Graeme Innes and his colleagues at the HREOC.

Equality for sexual minorities is on the way: http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21310074-421,00.html

Get used to it.

Well I admit Joy, I loathe Mardi Gras for myself these days like the Dentist.

As much as I have supported it in past I am retiring from having to defend the thing and will stay home with the family.

This decision does not stop the pressure from my LGTB friends who keep calling every 10 minutes insisting that I must go, and if I don't, they'll somehow kidnap me kicking and screaming till I finally submit. The thing that concreted my decision was that a few have insisted that if I am too tired to go, then I MUST take Crystal Meth to party on with them, or I am no artist at all.

I've had to question a few friendships. Friends never pressure you to take drugs.

So caught between various worlds in the inner city, my survival instincts kick in, and I don't think I need things to make me more insane than I already am.

If you think my devil's advocate in my last posting was a stress signal, you are probably right. I'm not insecure in myself, I just don't feel like going to Mardi Gras, and as my inner child is a non-conformist, I see no reason why I should conform for the sake of PC points. Other straight people around me are under similar duress and tension, they really don't want to go. It seems like a chore.

Its not my Mardi Gras anyway. Anyway, I won't rain on your Mardi Gras, enjoy it and please don't conform for the sake of approval taking Chrystal or other party drugs. I've seen the lion cages at SVH and the result is horrifying. If you get tired, just go home and enjoy a packet of Tim Tams. Nothing beats Tim Tams and a good cup of tea.

I think I made my point in terms of equal rights and how non-families or non-approved families have the burden of subsidising those who are approved.

Saintfletcher,
I enjoyed these video’s. This site very entertaining and 'educational' as well: http://www.thebricktestament.com//the_gospels/index.html
The mardi gras is not my thing, either (I'll watch it on TV High on Timtams), but wish everybody going a whole lot of fun.
An event is always better if all the people who are present want to be there!

Come on, people, what's the harm of the mardi gras? It's a great event for people who are into it. If it's not your thing just don't watch it.

JPW,
That’s good news, that Howard is finally considering some legal changes. I don't want to take away credit for Howards changes that HREOC obviously deserves, but I also wonder about other motives for his recent backflips… anything to do with the upcoming election?
And here: “Howard warns MPs off using Brethren support.”
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2007/02/09/1170524298528.html
we can see that after years of accepting major EB funding, his warning to the MP’s was well timed, too.

Grey,
The fact that benefits and taxbreaks are not provided by the government to same-sex couples does not indicate that these relationships are wrong or have no benefits to society, it indicates that our government was elected by wowsers.

Children,
You may argue all you like but there would seem to be a built in aversion in heterosexuals towards homosexuals.

Perhaps it has something to do with the survival of the species.

I don't know, but I do know that the homosexuals that I have known and worked with over the years, have never been a problem as far as their sexual preferences went.
In one Infantry Company that I served in there were two, who were an item,(and this was common knowledge in the unit) but the rest of the company kept quiet about it as they were good soldiers, soldiers that could be depended upon. Fifty years ago there was not the degree of tolerance that exists today and any wispers to higher authority would have led to an inquiry and seen them charged with an offence under military law.

I find it interesting that often (not always of course) those who are stridently opposed to immigration are also against homosexuality. I guess it's the christian 'pure & wholesome' society ideal coming to the fore.

What is interesting, is that often opponents of migration cite sustainability as a reason - more people will create a problem with resources. The other issue, is the religious conflict that migrants of middle eastern descent will cause.

Well here's a wacky idea to address both problems- increase the proportion of gay people in our migrant intake!

Being homosexual (and willing to admit it) would mean that they are reasonably liberal sorts - no ancient violent dogma attached, because if they're gay, it's harder for them to go along with anti-gay dogma.

Plus, they're less likely to procreate. Less future stress on our resources.

It's win win!

Somehow, I suspect most wouldn't see this as a viable option, but hey... it is logical.

And runner - can you provide hospital stats indicating that gay people stress health resources? Once upon a time AIDS was transferred by homosexuals, but that was largely because due to no fear of pregnancy, they wore no protection.
In which case, the issue was more about proper protection during sex than it was about homosexuality. In any case, your argument there is pretty spurious. I don't see any evidence to back it up at all.

My own position re same sex couples is basically the standard libertarian one – that people should be allowed to do what they please, provided they do not harm others in the process. I also believe in equality before the law.

Note, though, that I am opposed to much of the middle class welfare that has been thrown to families to win their votes, so the idea of increasing the number of people getting these benefits doesn’t exactly thrill me. Its just that I support equality on philosophical grounds.

On the subject of same sex couples adopting children, I can’t judge at this time as I am not familiar with the evidence. If properly conducted studies show that children raised by same sex couples are just as happy and well adjusted as those of hetero couples, then I’m OK with that. But if the evidence was to the contrary, then I would be opposed.

And that is probably my position on most issues – I will agree with whichever position is supported by the evidence I have available.

A number of arguments against the equality of same sex couples have been suggested in this thread. The religious argument is probably the more common one, and also the more difficult to combat. I might have a look at it in another post. The other main argument is the utilitarian one, put quite concisely by Grey, which suggests that unequal treatment is justified because society gains more benefits from one type of union than the other.

It sounds like an interesting argument, and I wonder if Grey or someone else could fill me in on exactly what benefits hetero couples provide that same-sex couples can’t, because the only one I can think of is the production of children. And given current concerns about possible overpopulation, that may actually be a bit of a dubious benefit.

The religious, or at least Christian, view on homosexuality has already been mentioned, but I’d like to add a few comments.

It is true that there is some inconsistency in most Christians’ approach to Old Testament law; they blithely disregard almost the entire body of Mosaic law, but are quite happy to pick out individual verses with which to attack behaviour they don’t approve of. The bit in Leviticus is the classic example.

Christians would probably be on firmer ground if they were insisting on the 10 commandments, as these were the very first laws God supposedly gave to Moses, and they were written in stone to boot. So all the rest of the law of Moses was based on this foundation – but they don’t actually mention homosexuality at all. Unless you consider it covered by the one about adultery. Or perhaps the one about not coveting your neighbour’s ass.

But unfortunately its not as simple as that, because homosexuality is also mentioned in the New Testament, mostly by Paul. For example: “Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion” (Rom 1:27, NIV). So unfortunately there is, in fact, a New Testament justification for the Christian anti-gay prejudice, which undermines the inconsistency argument.

On the other hand, Paul also says “What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church?” (1 Cor 5:12, NIV). So really, although they may have some Biblical justification for condemning gays inside the church, they have none whatsoever for judging those outside.

Cheers!

Getting back to the topic of Mardi Gras attendance, I made some interesting observations. The parade itself was the usual stuff which neither shocks me or moves me in particular. I generally had a few laughs, but more at the framework of the thing.

I noticed a reference to the surf livesavers, and again, the Cronulla group, more reference to life savers. I saw more Australian flags than of ever seen on Oxford Street before. They had pink backgrounds, but they were kinda Australian flags.

There was a chain gang of orange David Hick's, and one in a cage. That was the socialist alliance. Naturally this was followed by an Aboriginal flag. And the relevance is--? Gord, its Mardi Gras.

The people that were screaming out were mainly women, many of whom had children, doubtless a number were housewives. They know how to holler.

You'd notice this in the U Tube pages if you want a peek, I wont bother putting a reference in this time.

The front row in the Audience were mainly Asian women taking photos and having a wow of a time. Some I spoke to flew here just for the occasion. Most of them had real Australian flags. I'm not sure what that means.

The monitor screen towering over Tayler Square was funnier than the parade sometimes. They kept zooming the cameras in on the police officers and someone was titling a dialogue on the screen like "arrest me", and then "handcuff me", by then even the police couldn't contain their laughter. Then it went on: "please!" they were blushing and laughing. Then another punchline "why don't my parking attendents look like this?".

The fireworks were good, didn't see any overdoses, thankfully, and I left before it was over so I didn't get to see the yobbos get ugly at the end. So I forgave my gay friends for dragging me out, I did have a good laugh. Not at the queens, or the spectacle, but the situations that occured.

Celevia “There are not many women and men who want to go back to the lifestyle of the fifties; today’s families generally exist of dual earners or solo family models.”

The lifestyle of the 1950 would not return. That lifestyle was formed around working for one or maybe two companies for an entire working life. The model has changed, far more self employed far more independent contractors. The relationship of a contract of master and servant (the basis of old employment law) has been broken. Removing the compulsion to provide facile leave entitlements for spurious reasons would not turn back the clock, the 1950 model is gone because of many other reasons than absence of qualifying leave conditions

Jpw2040 “Equality for sexual minorities is on the way”

Does that mean the general population are going to be forced to fund feeding rooms and a supply of undernourished children to “equalize” the needs of “lactating transvestites”?

Minorities do not deserve unconditional equality. They might deserve tolerance but tolerance does not entitle them to any support or subsidy from the majority.

The problem is not merely economic. If I were to marry today, fall sick and die tomorrow, my wife of one day would have the right to hospital visits, decisions on treatment, and after my death, untaxed inheritance rights on superannuation, house, car… everything. She would also have the right to decide on the form of funeral. But none of those rights would be guaranteed to my partner of forty years. He can legally be treated as a stranger in the hospital; inherited superannuation will be taxed; and my family can contest the Will because, although I have been estranged from them for many years, they remain legally ‘family’ and he merely a ‘stranger’ with no rights before the law! This causes some disquiet. We have done our best to ensure a smooth transition when either of us dies, but it is unclear how secure the legal documents are in such cases.
The refusal of governments to acknowledge the validity of our love and commitment, reinforces religion-based homophobia and encourages hate crimes. It is bad enough that the perpetrators of homophobic vilification and discrimination – religions – are above the law, without the state joining in. How can we expect family and friends, or local residents to take our relationship and commitment seriously when the law doesn’t?
Relationships such as ours are not uncommon; Michael Kirby is only a few years behind us, and there are a great many others. An informal U.S.A. survey suggests that gay relationships are now outlasting heterosexual ones, and a UK survey in The New Scientist found that gay men made the best parents. We held very responsible jobs for all our working lives and have contributed more than most through taxation, so I think we should at least have the right to the disposal of our assets, and the mental security of knowing our partner will not be disadvantaged on our death.
Boaz… I'm grateful for your poisoned pen… you are an excellent advocate for atheism.

Two months ago, Col Rouge, you were showing unsettling signs of tolerance towards minorities http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=361#6523

Glad to see that you haven’t drifted too far from your redneck ways – I thought the sky was about to fall for a while there.

I understand that you dislike paying for something from which you don’t receive a direct benefit, but that’s not how things work in modern societies. Your taxes already pay for research into systemic-functional grammar, tunnels for wildlife to get across busy roads and advertising for “WorkChoices”.

The “will we now have to pay for ...” objection sounds like a valid one, but in fact, it’s a furphy. You’re already paying for lots of things that benefit others more than you. Get over it.

Also, what individuals are wearing is not a criterion for determining their eligibility for public services. If a human being is lactating, she deserves all the benefits available to all other lactating human beings, even if she is wearing men’s clothing.

That, after all, is what transvestites do – they wear the clothing of the opposite sex. Transvestites often belong to sexual minorities, but as we regularly see on the Footy Show, putting on a frock doesn’t necessarily make you attracted (or attractive) to members of the same sex.

You say, “Minorities do not deserve unconditional equality.” Human beings deserve unconditional equality, Col Rouge, regardless of what minorities they happen to belong to.

ybgirp,
Must go along with you on what you say about inheritance, there is no earthly (or heavenly) reason why there should not be a way that allows long term same sex partners entering into a legal union.
To call it marriage however raises the hackles of many people who would otherwise be on-side; settle for Legal Union or some other terminology and things will not only go smoother but probably quicker as well.

Is Mise
Absolutely correct! Gays have shot themselves in the foot by demanding marriage. France has had civil unions for years and they are now more popular among heterosexuals than marriage.

Is Mise, ybgirp,

Absolutely incorrect. To “settle for Legal Union” means to settle for inequality. Yes, relationship recognition is about legal rights, but it’s also about the value of our relationships in society. So long as same-sex couples are excluded from relationship forms available to opposite-sex couples, then their relationships will be seen as inferior.

This, as I said above, encourages homophobia by providing the ill-willed with a phoney justification for anti-gay hate.

Just like straight couples, not every gay couple wants to marry. However straight couples have the choice to marry, and this is denied to same-sex couples. This is where the inequality begins. It spreads through both social attitudes and legal rights, and its endpoint is very real discrimination and mistreatment for same-sex couples.

For a great summary of the reasons why same-sex couples should be allowed to marry, see Tim Dick’s SMH article from last January: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2006/01/13/1137118970554.html

ybgirp, your response is particularly disappointing. Descriptions of your relationship here and elsewhere show that you think it the equal of any marriage, yet you’re prepared to go on allowing others to treat it as less. Forty years of mutual love and support have earnt you both all the respect usually shown to a forty-year marriage between a man and a woman. You two haven’t got this respect yet, and it looks to me like you’ve given up fighting for it.

Is Mise, the young people in your family (children, grandchildren, nieces, nephews) are growing up in much better times than ybgirp and I did. Yet, should they turn out to be gay, your attitudes will deny them the chance to celebrate their relationships in the same way as their siblings. Would you really want to disadvantage some of your children in this way?

What I may or may not want is completely irrelevant to the point that talk of marriage between same sex couples is anathema to very many people who would otherwise support the idea of legal unions, with inheritance rights etc.
I avoid the use of 'Gay' as I know many people who are gay, most of the time, and who are strictly heterosexual, oft times that is one of the reasons that they are gay.
I've often had a gay old time myself, especially when dancing 'The Gay Gordons', and had an even gayer time afterwards.

Go for 'Civil Union' and much will be gained and nothing lost.

jpw2040,
You are obviously a concerned and thoughtful person, and I understand your disappointment, however, I wonder if you place too much importance on the word ‘marriage’. The Civil Union I envisage would confer all the rights that married couples and de-factos presently enjoy. In my opinion, the word marriage has been so devalued as to be worthless. It is not a state to which I aspire. As well, Marriage has been hi-jacked by religion and, as an atheist, I want no part in any union that is associated with supernatural beliefs.
I do not think my relationship is the ‘equal’ of marriage, because I know it is superior to the scores of marriages I have observed over the last 66 years. The only heterosexual couples I know with relationships as loving, equal, committed and secure as ours, are in de-facto relationships because they too have come to despise the institution of marriage. You say marriage confers respect – but it merely perpetuates role-playing. Husband and wife, dominant and passive. ’
If it takes the word marriage to make people respect me, then I don’t want their respect. I respect myself, and that is sufficient. All I want is equality before the law. What my relationship is called is irrelevant.
IsMise... once again we agree. The choice of the word gay for same-sex-oriented people was a deliberate attempt to discomfort Hets, who like to think of themselves as 'straight' while we are 'bent' 'queer' etc. Don't you think we deserve a pleasant word to describe us rather than foul terms such as poofters, faggots and so on by which we are traditionally known? It's also a sour reminder to us that most gays are not gay at all -- oppression and harassment are omnipresent, poisoning life and draining it of pleasure. When hets. stop using pejorative terms for us, we will no longer need to call ourselves 'gay'.

Sorry for the late reply.

CR,
while you are quite correct that the lifestyle of the 1950’s would not return if parental leave was stopped, but the point I was trying to convey is that we would be in danger of losing basic human rights if we’d erase parental leave. What people want today is a family-friendly society where the role of both the parents is recognised.

While I agree that the model has changed and there are far more self employed, and independent contractors, we need to think of the average workers which are still in the vast majority.

I don’t understand how caring for a family could be spurious and facile.
If employers are lagging behind with changes in our modern society, many parents will be unable to combine their work and parenting roles.
We need to take on these businesses rather than accepting that many parents are struggling.

There are benefits for the employers as well- they can hold on to valuable employees and save on turnover costs. We can see from some European countries that parental leave can be very flexible to suit both parents and their workplaces.

What I can’t grasp is why you would choose for a child to be put in a home rather than live with a same-sex couple! A stable family is much more beneficial for a child’s development than a home!

Jpw2040,
I wonder how big the role of schools is in the changing attitude of young people towards homosexuality.
I give their public school part of the credit for changing attitudes; I am happy about the way my children’s public school has put emphasis on anti-discrimination including homophobia.
I am not sure how conscientiously (religious) private schools are working at fighting discrimination on homosexuality- does anyone know?

Celivia, I know that most Australian schools from infants to university are hotbeds of homophobia. That one parent has found a school projecting positive attitudes is nothing short of miraculous. The greatest insult anyone can give in all schools, is to call someone gay, faggot, poof... and we know that half of all youth suicides are gay boys unable to cope with the homophobia they experience at school, home and in religious institutions from teachers, parents and other adults as well as their peers. Things are not getting better -- with the rise in religiosity among all politicians, things are deteriorating along with the gap between rich and poor.

ybgirp, one does not necessarily have to marry in church, my husband and I had a non-religious wedding. Even my parents rejected religion and didn’t marry in a church.
(I’ve recently discovered this atheist discussion website which I’m checking out, you might be interested in having a look.
http://www.the-brights.net/forums/forum/index.php?showforum=84
It’s free to join and you- and other OLO atheists- are welcome to send me a personal message there to say hello!)

Yes, it is extremely sad that homophobia is not dealt with in ALL schools and that it is a reason for boys to commit suicide while many of these suicides would be preventable if schools (and parents!) had a zero tolerance attitude towards homophobic behaviour.

I have no idea whether the public schools’ curriculum includes anti-discrimination topics or whether it was just a thing my kids’ school teachers developed voluntarily.
Perhaps you are correct and I was extremely lucky that these positive attitudes were introduced at the school.

It’s also sad that our politicians seem to promote Christian values rather than unbiased morality, human rights and values.
Do our ministers not see that if they don’t put money toward improving and updating education they will have to spend it on building more jails to lock up poorly educated juveniles and adults?

I would like to say more about private schools (like: get rid of them!) but perhaps this thread is not the place for it.

Yes, same-sex attracted young people are often perilously unprotected at school. A recent example was in a Queensland state high school, where a gay kid who was being threatened by other students was told to stay at home, punishing the victim rather than the perpetrator. http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,20697973-3102,00.html (be sure to read the comments).

And yes, in most states, private schools enjoy exemptions from anti-discrimination laws, enabling them to disadvantage both staff and students who are gay.

From the NSW Attorney General's Department website: "Private educational institutions are allowed to discriminate against people because of their sex, marital status, homosexuality, transgender or disability. However, independent educational institutions are not allowed to discriminate against people because of their age or race. In addition, they must not allow or tolerate sexual harassment." http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/adb/ll_adb.nsf/pages/adb_general#areas

However there have also been some honourable instances of positive discrimination. About seven years ago, after a well-publicised case of a gay teenager being bullied in a state school, the boy was quietly placed in my niece's class at the local catholic high school, where he finished his schooling.

As a result I think it’s important to acknowledge that there are many fine people working to ensure that same-sex attracted kids aren’t disadvantaged in private schools. Some religious institutions actually do put compassion before dogma.