Osama bin Martin: "Unless we resist, you included jpw, we will find ourselves entering the path to the abolition of the human – the gods move very fast when they bring ruin on misguided men.

No more evasions. Show how polygamy, polyamory and incest does not follow from your demands and show why my concerns deserve to be ignored. The onus is on you jpw. Answer in here or be silent."

Bizarre.

There was on Monday 20 August 2007 an ABC 4Corners program how a religious freak (Minister) was preaching against homosexuality but then later had to resign as a Minister because he was himself a homosexual. There was, as I understand it, the same with a Minister of Hillside Church in Australia. All over the USA this kind of hatred against homosexual is pursued. Granted, I, so to say, get sick of having a couple of blokes with earrings and hairdo licking each other in front of a camera, so with lesbians, but it is another matter to use religion for this while the very one preaching about these sins turn out to be homosexual themselves.
Homosexuals wanted their privacy in their bedrooms and they got this long ago, but as much as I dislike religious freaks to go after homosexuals the same do I deplore homosexuals to pursue the rights of heterosexuals.
When was a float held to celebrate heterosexuality as the homosexuals are doing with Mardi Grass? Is this itself not making clear that those participating want to be seen as a sideshow, freaks or whatever, as if it was so normal, as some try to make us believe they would not need some Mardi Grass kind of display, exposure.
Biologically a child need a mother and a father and neither two women or two man can conceive together a child! Nature had decided this for us and let respect nature for this. If homosexuals don’t like the rules then they are free to move to the Antarctic and create their own environment suitable to them and perhaps they might just cool off also.

Martin, your selectivity is even more curious than your dogged loyalty to thousand-year-old notions. What makes a taboo against same-sex marriage worth keeping, when taboos against miscegenation and sex during menstruation are not?

Just because something is old, doesn’t mean it is worthy. Slavery, monarchy and female circumcision are age-old traditions that we have honourably discarded.

Even the idea that men and women get together for the purpose of child-rearing no longer applies, not even to opposite-sex couples with children. Because we live longer, we’re breeding later, so typically a period of child support is bookended by much longer periods of staying together for reasons of interpersonal attraction – romantic love, if you like.

Kids don’t keep couples together any more, or hadn’t you noticed? How many seventy-year-old couples are still married for the sake of the children? None.

In any event, you’re still refusing to heed your own counsel about reading carefully, Martin. As I pointed out above http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6204#90030 Lyn Allison’s article is not about marriage – it’s about the removal of discrimination in federal law. The persistent introduction of side issues doesn’t add to the discussion, it poisons it.

I understand much better now jpw thank you.

Homosexual activists refuse to countenance what their radical demands would mean for Australia.

Australians are easy going people and wouldn't begrudge reasonable demands, but you're taking advantage. How have you treated a sincere question about the effects of your demands on Australia?

"don't want to talk about it"
"wont happen"
"poisons the discussion"

The application of a principle to new situations is the very definition of reason but you simply refuse to do this.

Oh Martin, you’re so cute when you pout.

Like I said above, from a social, philosophical or medical viewpoint, the discrimination against same-sex attracted people is no longer defensible. A fair go, nothing more, is what we seek.

When everyone gets a fair go, everyone benefits. It’s as simple as that. The existence of a group in society which is treated unfairly is corrosive for the entire society, because it creates the situation where it can be argued that group A is treated differently, so why not group B?

Lyn Allison is arguing for the implementation of the HREOC recommendations for equal benefits for same-sex couples. In her words, “People’s natural right to equality is being breached, and the efficiency and effectiveness of our government bodies are being compromised, because of elected representatives’ bigoted and old-fashioned views.”

The effect on Australia of granting equality to same-sex couples?

1. the reinforcement of the fair go principle
2. a clear signal that our federal government doesn’t mistreat minorities
3. an environment where kids growing up gay can do so without fear
4. a society that rewards equal contributions (and obligations) with equal benefits

Get over it, Martin. It’s going to happen, and the sky won’t fall.

Martin

You can't categorise 'homosexual activists' as one homogenous, placard-waving group. This is a simplistic stereotype, created in order to dismiss valid critiques. It's attacking the person, not the idea.

Activists don't 'refuse' to countenance challenges to their positions. See Rodney Croome's website, for instance, where he rebuts the arguments from a recent SMH article. http://www.rodneycroome.id.au/comments?id=2484_0_1_0_C

Indeed, Australians wouldn't begrudge reasonable demands. But conservative politicians will. The fact is, most Australians (71% - Galaxy) accept the sort of reforms Senator Allison is discussing. It's just the radical right-winger Howard who is holding our country back.

As for your 'gay marriage leads to polygamy' argument, Croome destroys it here ('Why there’s no intrinsic link between same-sex marriage and multi-partner relationships'): http://www.rodneycroome.id.au/comments?id=2032_0_1_0_C

Gay activists aren't 'refusing' to countenance challenges. You're just refusing to listen to their responses.