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.