Andrew,

A timely article.

I know it's true that there are lots of Liberals who would support an end to homophobic laws governing financial and work-related entitlements, but you're right about the reasons nothing changes:

(a) homophobic intimidation by Howard; and
(b) a miscalculation of voters' reaction to reforms.

The first barrier may soon be removed, but the second may take more time and need courageous leadership.

I see a parallel in this issue with the courageous stand on Tampa and asylum-seekers taken by Peter Andren who, sadly, died just recently. He will be sadly missed, as will you, Andrew, when your term expires.

Peter Andren, Independent MP for Calare (a country NSW seat previously held by the Coalition), challenged the major parties on Tampa and mandatory detention. He tells ("The Andren Report: an independent way in Australian politics", Scribe 2003) how when he went public with his views in the election of 2001, he received heaps of hate mail and bigoted comment in the local media. His popularity slipped - at first.

However, he decided to stick to his guns and went to local media to explain his point-of-view. In the course of the election campaign the vilification slowed down and he began to receive positive support.

Finally, the negative feedback which was running at 8:1 against turned around completley and ran 8:1 in his favour by the close of the campaign. He increased his majority at the election, turning a marginal seat into a solid winner with over 50% of the primary vote and 75% on two-party preferred.

His leadership on this issue was a key factor, with many voters changing their minds during the campaign because of his courageous and honest stand on the issue.

The major parties - driven by polls and fear of special interest pressure groups such as Exclusive Brethren - are cowardly on this issue. I suspect that Australian people don't care enough to vote on homophobic issues, but might even be prepared to honour the notion of a 'fair go' if politicians had the courage to show leadership.

What exactly is a homophobic law?

Why do homosexual people and their supporters deal with opposition to their views by labelling those who disagree with them homophobic? What is the point of such name calling? Surely if you have a good argument you can deal with opposing arguments without resorting to such childish behaviour.

Or are we to presume that everyone who disagrees with homosexuals about any issue does so only because they are afraid of them? Homosexual people cannot be wrong they can only be victims of ‘homophobia’.

There may even be discrimination but that does not automatically mean that people who discriminate are afraid of homosexuals or homosexuality.

People who promote homosexual rights do nothing for their integrity or their cause when they resort to such defensive tactics.

It is like saying someone who disagrees with the policies of Robert Mugabe is just a racist. Is it not possible his policies are just wrong?

Good article, there is no valid reason why the law should continue to discriminate against homosexual couples.

Phanto,
"There may even be discrimination but that does not automatically mean that people who discriminate are afraid of homosexuals or homosexuality."

The term 'phobia' also means 'a dislike, or aversion.'

Laws that discriminate against same-sex couples cannot be justified for any other reason than a dislike of their sexuality- well at least I cannot manage to think of any good reason why same-sex couples should not be able to the same entitlements as opposite-sex couples.

“Laws that discriminate against same-sex couples cannot be justified for any other reason than a dislike of their sexuality”

Of course they can. Many people do not think children should be brought up by same-sex couples and give very good reasons to support their argument. Homosexual people may not agree with them but that does not mean those people are motivated only by a dislike or aversion towards homosexuals. They may be motivated by a deep concern for the children.

The term ‘homophobia’ is not only used in relation to discrimination. Whenever anyone disagrees with the apologetic put forward by homosexual people to justify their sexual behaviour they are also labelled ‘homophobic’. Homosexual people may argue that their behaviour is quite natural and give reasons to substantiate their claim. Someone else may criticise their argument and provide good reasons to show that their argument is false and that therefore homosexual behaviour is not natural. You could not deduce from this that the person has a dislike or aversion to homosexuals nor could you deduce that they have a like of homosexuals. All you can deduce is that they base their judgements on reason and logic.

Funny, you can tell some people the same thing over and over again, but they never get it: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=5658#76783

Homophobia is “prejudice against (fear or dislike of) homosexual people and homosexuality”
http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=homophobia

“Why do homosexual people and their supporters deal with opposition to their views by labelling those who disagree with them homophobic?”

A lot depends on whether you’re disagreeing with an individual homosexual person, or with all homosexuals. I promise, phanto, that I will not say you are being homophobic if you disagree with me on, say, the subject of OLO’s posting limits: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1189#21843

In fact, disagreeing with me personally on any subject is not homophobic.

However if you argue that homosexuals deserve fewer rights than heterosexuals then of course you are being homophobic. You are seeking to deny rights to individuals because they are homosexual – because they belong to a particular grouping.

So when I say that you are homophobic, phanto, it’s not because you disagree with me. It’s because you are arguing that I deserve fewer rights because I’m homosexual.

Similarly, any law which limits the rights of homosexuals is correctly labelled homophobic.

“Many people do not think children should be brought up by same-sex couples and give very good reasons to support their argument.”

There are no good reasons for denying parenting rights to homosexuals. Study after study is showing that children raised by same-sex parents do just as well as those raised by opposite-sex parents, most recently http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/533580/?sc=lwhn The “arguments” about traditional values, or that “children deserve a mother and a father” are based on opinions, not facts, and they simply don’t stand up against the available evidence.

The use of opinion to justify withholding rights from whole groups of people is unfair discrimination. There is only one group in our society to whom this type of discrimination continues to be applied – those who are attracted to the same sex.

Finally, sexual behaviour doesn’t have to be justified when it occurs between consenting adults. However homophobic rhetoric typically uses sexual behaviour to justify discrimination – and yours is no exception, phanto.

JPW said:

"However if you argue that homosexuals deserve fewer rights than heterosexuals then of course you are being homophobic. – because they belong to a particular grouping."

annnnnnd....there you have it. NAMBLA'S reasoning and self justification. Not a shred of evidence to the contrary...this is EXACTLY the line they take... and if using the same presuppositions as the Gay lobby, you cannot argue against their position..which is....

MORAL RELATIVISM.

Well.. sorry, but once you get the camels nose in the door of the tent, the body is not far behind. Morality.. if you take the reasoning and presuppositions of the Gay lobby could go in ANY.. repeat ANY direction that we so choose/lobby for it to to.
Hence in Holland.. there is a political party ADVOCATING child sex as 'ok'.

IMMORAL are the following:

-Incest.
-Child molestation.
-Homosexual behavior.
-Sex with animals.

Now..whether I use Leviticus 18 as my basis or 'common sense' they are still 'immoral' to a community which has not been 'guilt tripped' into submission by creative and highly motivated well organized homosexuals and their cronies.

JPW also said:

>>There are no good reasons for denying parenting rights to homosexuals.<<

Well..or course not, if you use 'academic achievement' as the sole criteria for judging.
But then.. if you use 'normal upbringing' as the criteria, you cannot but argue that
a) A human being is the result of the joining of a man and a women in reproduction.
b) Thus, is follows reasonably, naturally and normally, that humans should be brought up and socialised by a MAN and a WOMAN in the context of a loving family.

I absolutely and eternally reject.. let me say it again REJECT.. in fact..I'll say it again REJECT! the idea that 2 men or 2 women should ever BE ALLOWED to raise children, when those men or women are in a 'sexual relationship'.
If 2 sisters... fine. If 2 brothers.. fine. If 2 friends without sexual contact...fine. (taking all circumstances into account, such as wives or husbands who were abandoned by their spouses)