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)

Continued.

So, just in case anyone is under any doubt about where I would stand...and how I would vote... it is absolutely and without the slightest bit of compromise AGAINST "same sex couples" being recognized in any way shape or form in any level of our society.
(where homosexual behavior is at the core of the relationship)

If I decide to marry my DOG... and seek to change the laws so my Dog can benefit in the same way a spouse would from my superannuation etc etc etc.. firstly it seems ludicrous, secondly immoral, and finally socially destructive.

BLIND NELLIE can see that once we abandon a moral stand on this issue, as Dostoyevsky is 'reported' to have said "If God does not exist, everything is permitted"
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/features/2000/cortesi1.html
yes, it was in fact the sentiment of one of his characters, but it still expresses a logical truth.

>>the whole irony of The Brothers Karamazov is that Ivan advances this logical statement, but later admits to Alyosha that, in fact, he believes in God. Hence Ivan has believed right from the start that the antecedent is false and, therefore, that the implication is null -- it was never more than an intellectual toy. Alas, other characters take the succedent B seriously and act on it, resulting in great evil, for which Ivan must feel indirectly responsible.<<

PROBLEM.. clearly, if people reject God, the implication (that all is permissable/lawful in the philosophical sense) is NOT 'null' but real.

and as concluded above it "resulted in great evil"

Interesting article.

phanto: "What exactly is a homophobic law?"

I don't think laws can be homophobic, but those who oppose the removal of laws that discriminate against homosexuals usually are.

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

Unfortunately, phanto doesn't actually provide any of these "very good reasons". Despite his/her weaselish protestations, I have little doubt that phanto is a classic homophobe.

Similarly, Boazy's efforts in this thread are true to his usual pattern of homophobic vilification. As soon as removing discrimination against homosexuals is mentioned, you can bet your life that we'll hear about NAMBLA, incest, paedophilia, bestiality etc.

In fact, whenever one of the groups that Boazy doesn't approve of - like homosexuals, Muslims, refugees or Greens - is mentioned in this forum, it's only a matter of time before Boazy pops up, raving about paedophilia or some other sexual perversion.

Of course, it is well established in psychology that those who are most virulently homophobic tend to be so precisely because they are afraid of their own repressed homosexual feelings.

BOAZ_David,

I read your double-instalment 612-word post in search of an argument in support of your opposition to gay rights.

I found: a camel’s nose in the door of the tent; a Dutch political party advocating child sex; incest, child molestation and sex with animals.

I found: Leviticus 18; cronies; and a quaint sex education lesson (“A human being is the result of the joining of a man and a women in reproduction.”)

I found magic words a-plenty: “reasonably, naturally and normally”.

I found a crescendo of shouted rejection – thrice repeated in case we failed to understand where you stand.

I found: a weird analogy proposing that you marry your dog and give it superannuation rights. But thankfully you came to your senses in the nick of time.

I found: Blind Nelly and Dostoyevsky.

I found an OLO poster beside himself with outrage.

But, David, I didn’t find a single argument to support your homophobia.

Outrage is enough is it?

Quite simply homosexuality is utterly and completly wrong, it is completly against the laws of God. It is sin. How can a homosexual expect to benefit from the proceeds of crime (read sin). The bible outlines God's thoughts on this issue very clearly.

Leviticus 18:22-23 (King James Version)

22Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

23Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion.

Romans 1:27 (Amplified Bible)

27And the men also turned from natural relations with women and were set ablaze (burning out, consumed) with lust for one another--men committing shameful acts with men and suffering in their own [a]bodies and personalities the inevitable consequences and penalty of their wrong-doing and going astray, which was [their] fitting retribution.

Note is this last verse where homosexuals will receive the reward for their sin the inevitable consequences and penalty of their wrong-doing, which was (their)fitting retribution. The consequence for them is not participating and receiving the same benefits of people who are a proper marriage or relationship. Homosexuals have made the lifestyle decision to persue a different course, so therefore they have no right to any additional benefit include the blessing and right to have children within that abominable sinful relationship that a person would is in a right relationship can obtain.

Part Two follows

Marriage was designed to be a union between a man and a woman and children, should the Lord will, to result from the union. Marriage was never designed to be between a he and a he or a she and a she. and to have the absolute selfishness to even bring children into world from such a union in my opinion is tantamount to child abuse. How does a child explain to his or her friend "I have two Mum's" or "I have two Dad's" This opens the child to ridicule and bullying in a massive way in school. How is a child supposed to learn about how to be a good husband, father, wife, mother in a same sex relationship. The ideal is that the children learn from their mother and their father about how to be in a relationship, what is appropriate behavior in a relationship and what is not appropriate behavior.

People may also say what about God's forgiveness and us repenting for sin. Well that is simple to. REPENT means to stop from what you are doing, TURN AROUND and walk away from and keep walking away from that sin. It DOES not mean "Oh sorry God and in the next moment turn right back into sin" It doesn't work like that.

So the solution is simply, cease your sinful behaviour - seek forgiveness - Seek the Lords heart and He will show you what HE wants you to do.

Z

The problem is, zahira, that the bible says many things.

Like all your fellow-travellers, you just cherry-pick the bits that feed your prejudice, and pretend the rest is imagery or metaphor.

>>The bible outlines God's thoughts on this issue very clearly. Leviticus 18:22-23<<

Leviticus said a lot of things. Why pick this one, except to support your bigotry?

What's wrong with:

"And if a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not vex him. But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself" Leviticus 19:34

Don't see much of that among christians these days, do you?

Be honest. Most of the first part of Leviticus consists of detailed instructions on how to make animal sacrifices - even down to the detail of how much the priest takes as his fee.

"And the priest shall bring it unto the altar, and wring off his head, and burn it on the altar; and the blood thereof shall be wrung out at the side of the altar' Leviticus 1:15

I don't see a lot of that in churches these days. Although it is possible that I don't get out enough:

Do you also subscribe to Leviticus' "purity" requirements?

"Whosoever... that hath any blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his God. For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous, Or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded, Or crookbackt, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken... he shall not come nigh to offer the bread of his God" Leviticus 21:17-21

This was the foundation, of course, of the "Race Hygiene" laws of 1933 in Germany.

Do you believe these are applicable too?

Given that, why do you choose a verse from the same "Sacrificing for Dummies" manual to excoriate homosexuals?

The homosexual lobby and its supporters are not even honest enough to have the health risks stated as a result of their chosen behaviour. Infectous diseases are rife among the homosexuals due to their unhealthy practices. They then have the audacity to question clear Scriptural authority. They along with fornicators, adulterers, liars and hypocrites can and do receive mercy and forgiveness when they turn from their sin. Why vote for a death culture that is destructive to society?

boaz, zahira, runner... you're doing this debate quite a service by exposing the weakness of the opposing arguments.

As another poster pointed out, boaz's post was rambling all over the place. We're not discussing paedophilia here boaz.

Guess what? Statutory rape is illegal - and that's generally between men and women, so the age issue is bulldust.

So's animals. I don't care what you say, you can talk about moral relativism all you want, but the argument's stupid. You're not going to get that.

zahira pops up with the old 'Oh no! The Bible said it's wrong!" which is repeated by runner.

Fortunately the rest of us don't give a damn. Follow your bible by all means, but leave the rest of us alone.

zahira, if you want to talk leviticus, then any men who sleep with their wives during menstruation should be exiled or put to death. That's just crap, I'm afraid.

I do wish christians would get over these sex issues. Why they think this is any of their business is beyond me.

All I see here is a whole lot of hot air peppered with religious rhetoric. How about something tangible to back your case?

The bible was written by, about, and for a semitic tribe which faced extinction. All the rules contained therein - and attributed to god - are simply pragmatic methods of ensuring survival and include, predictably, prohibition of non-procreative sex.

Biblical injunctions against homosexuality are no more relevant today than making a carcass kosher or halal by draining the blood, which, coincidentally, eliminates most of the micro-organisms that cause disease.

Get a fridge, let people live their own lives, and join us in the 21st century.

JPW “if you argue that homosexuals deserve fewer rights than heterosexuals then of course you are being homophobic.”
Exactly. I’ve also come across people who think women should not have the right to make choices regarding their fertility, yet feel insulted when one calls them misogynists.
Some homophobes think they are not homophobic because they argue that their opinion is justified. They cannot see that only homophobics would try to justify such opinion.

Boaz “Hence in Holland.. there is a political party ADVOCATING child sex as 'ok'.”
So what? This paedo party (PNVD) did not get enough support to be able participate in the elections. In a democracy, anyone should be able to try to get a political party off the ground. The main aim of that paedo-party is to lower the age of sexual consent from 16 to 12 years of age. They argue that children of 12 these days are mature enough to vote and make their own decisions including whether to have sex or not.
Boaz, the media (especially in the USA) have made a big thing out of the fact that a couple of pedophiles launched this party; in Holland it is common that a myriad of parties try to get off the ground before an election- the vast majority of these wanna-be parties do not make it to the election.
Democracy gets rid of such parties, so would anarchy. We do not need so-called Christian morals from a book to tell people how to behave.

Phanto et al Homosexual couples are perfectly capable of raising children.
If heterosexual couples were exclusively able to be good parents then why do they make a mess of it? There are so many abuse/neglect cases that it overwhelms DOCS and all the foster-parents homes.

Pericles, your post is priceless; I struggle to understand why Christians lecture OTHERS about not adhering to the words in the Bible while THEY just cherry-pick things they agree with and reject the rest.

Take Sancho's advice: join us in the 21st century.

Hi all, I do have something solid on which to back my case, and that is the Law and Guidelines of GOD. I don't base my lifestyle on sin and perversity. I will agree that some Christian religions are selective about what they read from the bible. My faith believes in the bible from the 1st verse of the first chapter of Genesis right to the last verse of the last chapter of Revelation. We don't pick and chose what we what out of it. God has said very clearly what he thinks of homosexuality and thats quite good enough for me. I am in the 21st Century, but also I'm a 21st Century Christian reading and working from a relevant instruction manual - the King James Bible.

zahira: "I am in the 21st Century, but also I'm a 21st Century Christian reading and working from a relevant instruction manual - the King James Bible"

Poor thing. Imagine trying to live life in the 21st century with a collection of bronze age myths and legends as your "instruction manual".

Quite so, CJ Morgan. For a true word spoken in jest...

www.theonion.com/content/node/28532

zahira, life must be very difficult with so many conflicting aspects.

Even die hard fundamentalists like boaz have rejected many of the more violent, archaic bits of the bible, on various grounds, such as the Old Testament being a different kettle of fish to the NT, or the laws of Leviticus being a specific set of rules for a specific people.

It sounds like contortionist apologetics for the brutal bits to the rest of us, but at least they reject the savagery of murdering homosexuals, killing witches and sacrificing animals.

So to recap: zahira therefore thinks it's okay to stone people to death for certain things and murder people for sexual habits, reckons we need to hunt down witches then kill them, and to top it off, reckons animal sacrifice is the done thing.

These are the arguments of primitive savagery. I'm quite shocked to think people still believe that in this day in age, though it's nice to know your discrimination comes from a pretty ignorant foundation.

The reality is that there is no discrimination. There is no homophobia. There is no such thing as sexual preference. There is no such thing as a homosexual.

There are just a lot of people in emotional pain. Some people dull their pain with alcohol, some with drugs, some with eating disorders, some with religion, some with work, some with play. Some people try and avoid facing their pain by getting involved in relationships that can never bring them the peace they seek. Some people try to find solace in unnatural sexual behaviour. Some people combine two or more behaviours in the quest for relief from their pain.

When they are challenged they begin to rationalise their behaviour. Like the alcoholic who says he just likes the taste of drink or the company of his mates. Like the drug addict who says it is only ‘recreational’. Like the religious person who says it is what ‘God’ wants.

People who use dysfunctional relationships and unnatural sexual behaviour to avoid their pain will try and rationalise it in many ways. They become very aggressive when their rationalisations do not stand up to critical analysis. They seek to attack and hurt those who threaten to expose the underlying pain from which they are trying to escape.

They hope to bolster the weight of their rationalisations by getting together to form ‘gay communities’ and they manufacture a ‘gay culture’. With the strength of numbers they can bully and intimidate the rest of society into believing that their own explanations for their neurotic behaviour are actually based on sound argument and scientific fact.

CONTINUED:

They can even bully and intimidate some naïve politicians. They clamour for their relationships and their sexual behaviour to be recognised as equal in integrity to the relationships of men and women who are genuinely together because they love each other and who express that love by natural sexual union.

Now they have lobbied to the point where they want the Australian taxpayer to be a party to their self-deception and give them money from the public purse to help bolster what becomes a bigger lie every day. It is like heroin addicts expecting the government to fund their addiction.

There is no point in continuing this thread. The guy who wrote the original article is just misguided. There is no discrimination.

There is no phanto. Just a pain.

Phanto. Are you speaking from personal experience? As it sounds like it!

Nah, I think that Phanto is from Iran; I've heard that there are no homosexuals there.
Mwwwaaaahahaha.

One reason why the 'pink vote' won't have a great impact on the election is because the homosexual lobby totally inflate the number of people choosing this lifestyle. At one stage they were trying to claim that 10% plus of the population was born this way. The dishonesty in defending this unhealthy lifestyle flows over into a dishonest over represented gay media. Your ABC have certainly has had their fair share of people into this lifestyle. No need for affirmative action there.

Well... I don't 'choose' this life style myself- I'm married with children.
But I'd like to live in a world where same sex couples have equal rights.

I don't have to be homosexual to empathise with the discrimination they have to deal with.
I don't have to be a sheep to be able to disapprove of live exports.
I don't have to be be faced with an unwanted pregnancy to be able to support abortion rights.

What I value is a society where people respect each other's freedom and choices but where people and organisations are expected not to unnecessarily interfere with the freedom of others.

Celivia

Well said. I'm with you on respect and freedom.

Given the flagrant discrimination and hardship that gay people experience - not to mention violence and bullying, in many instances - it's hard to give credibility to those who talk about homosexuality being a freely-made lifestyle choice. Certainly not a matter of choosing an 'evil' lifestyle as some ignorant people imply.

Reading the line “There are just a lot of people in emotional pain,” it’s hard to rid myself of the impression that phanto is referring to him/herself rather than me (I think Kipp has read this the same way). I’ve responded to phanto once before about my attitude to my own homosexuality http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=5658#78567 and there’s no need to expand on that here.

However, even worse that the claims about pain, phanto has introduced an entirely new form of denialism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denialism

Denialism is the rationale that has allowed tobacco companies to escape responsibility for deaths and misery caused by their products. It was the justification for allowing HIV/AIDS to spread through many parts of Africa, and denialists have led the resistance to measures against global warming.

So far the worst homophobes have stopped short of claiming that homosexuality doesn’t exist http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2007/05/who_are_the_denialists_part_ii.php but not phanto.

The denial of historical and scientific truths is a cause of great misery, and the addition of homosexuality to the list of denied facts is one of the saddest things I have read on OLO.

The irony is that there are no "supporters of homesexuality"; there are only people who object to baseless discrimination.

I'm sick to death of gays being in the limelight, and tired of homosexuality being portrayed as a human quality of special value. But as long as gays are hysterically denounced, they will be the subject of debate and attention.

If christian conservatives really want homosexuality out of the picture, they should just shut up about it!

Why isn't the Discrimination Act used against parliament?
Discrimination on the grounds of gender is illegal is it not?
The Federal Government has waged a fear campaign in the Australian community for years now. Maintaining fear of homosexuality fits right in with this. Anxious, paranoid and insecure people tend to vote right, so keeping up the fear message is good for conservative politics. The Liberals also foster conflict over consensus in most of their administration believing conflict is beneficial in causing the change they want to happen.

Gays tend to represent an educated slice of the community that votes left, so why would the conservatives favour them? they don't, they just don't care that much about citizen's rights. Those on the right that do care want to punish gays. The churches have a lot to do with this, still broadcasting their homophobic, anti feminine superstition at any anyone who will listen.

Homophobia is only one type of anxiety, but those exhibiting it are often scared of many other things. It is their general state of anxiety that needs addressing, not just the one phobia, but the many together and the solutions for these frightened people. Blaming them and ridiculing them for expressing their fear is not a solution -that is their response to the things they fear. These people need education, reassurance and reasonable explanations to help with attitude change.

Just thought I'd re-post BOAZ_David's comments, but change "homesexual" to "christian". It's just as logical and I'm sure he would agree with the sentiment. The words are his own, so he cant find them offensive in any way.
What exactly is a anti-christian law?
Why do christian people and their supporters deal with opposition to their views by labelling those who disagree with them anti-christian? 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 christians about any issue does so only because they are afraid of them? Christian people cannot be wrong they can only be victims of ‘anti-christian’.
There may even be discrimination but that does not automatically mean that people who discriminate are afraid of christians or christianity.
People who promote christian 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?
“Laws that discriminate against christian couples cannot be justified for any other reason than a dislike of their religiousity”
Of course they can. Many people do not think children should be brought up by christian couples and give very good reasons to support their argument. Christian people may not agree with them but that does not mean those people are motivated only by a dislike or aversion towards christians. They may be motivated by a deep concern for the children.
The term ‘anti-christian’ is not only used in relation to discrimination. Whenever anyone disagrees with the apologetic put forward by christian people to justify their religious behaviour they are also labelled ‘anti-christian’.

AND MORE...
Christian 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 christian behaviour is not natural. You could not deduce from this that the person has a dislike or aversion to christians nor could you deduce that they have a like of christians. All you can deduce is that they base their judgements on reason and logic.
The reality is that there is no discrimination. There is no anti-christian. There is no such thing as religious preference. There is no such thing as a christian.
There are just a lot of people in emotional pain. Some people dull their pain with alcohol, some with drugs, some with eating disorders, some with religion, some with work, some with play. Some people try and avoid facing their pain by getting involved in relationships that can never bring them the peace they seek. Some people try to find solace in unnatural religious behaviour. Some people combine two or more behaviours in the quest for relief from their pain.
When they are challenged they begin to rationalise their behaviour. Like the alcoholic who says he just likes the taste of drink or the company of his mates. Like the drug addict who says it is only ‘recreational’. Like the religious person who says it is what ‘God’ wants.
People who use dysfunctional relationships and unnatural religious behaviour to avoid their pain will try and rationalise it in many ways. They become very aggressive when their rationalisations do not stand up to critical analysis. They seek to attack and hurt those who threaten to expose the underlying pain from which they are trying to escape.