I would agree with you Kipp, particularly about accepting responsibility.

Rates of STD’s in Australia have doubled in the last 10 years, and this is mostly due increased rates of STD’s in the gay community. So there is a highly disproportionate amount of STD’s amongst homosexuals when compared to the rest of the population.

Marriage involves a commitment to one other partner, and marriage is nature’s way of reducing STD’s. If homosexuals do get marriage, they can start and show responsibility, reduce the number of sexual partners they have, and vastly reduce the number of STD’s they have.

Quite a good point there, HRS. Those who attempt to play the gay-sex-STD card should logically be in favour of same-sex marriage as it would reduce the number of sexual partners.

What say you runner? Do you therefore support same-sex marriage?

Not entirely in favor of homosexual marriage TRTL. The main benefit to it would be to help eliminate the high rate of STD’s amongst gays, and help reduce the transient nature of many gay relationships.

However adoption of children by gay couples is questionable, and I would rule out completely lesbian women having children through IVF, thereby denying the child a right to a father.

The Christian Taliban?

Those dogmatic Chrisitians who brook no difference, dissent or discussion that contradicts, challenges, questions or even doubts their vision of the world, a vision handed down from ancient texts and accepted as gospel (pun intended.)

religion accepts the status quo (good for capitalists) and gives the impression the world, the here and now, can change (good for the oppressed.) Since nothing does change fundamentally through their particular god's intermediation or their own religious actions capital laughs all the way to the bank. (Another bad pun which doesn't save the cliché.)

OK. Now it’s getting spooky. First, BD morphed into something else (but is still distinctively BD), and now someone else is writing under CJ’s name (where is the real CJ Morgan? Anyone?)

Passy your linkage of taliban and Christian, is neither original or justifiable.

In summary, you borrow this extremist term to describe dogmatic religionists who conspiratorially buttress and endorse the capitalist state. It is unclear how they stand to benefit from this particular nastiness, although it sits comfortably with their narrow worldview (unless they are already part of the capitalist establishment that desires to prop up the status quo).

Phew. I'm relieved. For a moment there I thought you were making a connection between the brutal, ousted Muslim extremists of Afghanistan, notorious for civil rights abuses - particularly against women - and the surge of American, fundamentalist, right-wing politicians with Christian affiliations (and OLO Christians).

Indeed, you do use your terms loosely. Personifying capitalism, for example.

Capitalism cannot “wage a campaign”, “criminalise homosexual activity” or “see the family as a unit”. A group of capitalists might be able to, but who are these people?

The only explanation for these mysterious friends to the ultra-religious, is that they have existed through history, silently planning and forging secret alliances with the “more backward elements among society”. Quite a history-changing union of power-mongers (the “forces of reaction”) that you’ve assembled there. All existing with the common purpose of bullying homosexuals back into the factory.

Take a big leap in logic, followed by some very long bounds over the historical record, to arrive at the “roots of homophobia” theory.

But since we are on the topic of the causes of rapid homophobia, could you please share how sharia evolved to institutationalise the persecution of homosexuals in the complete absence of capitalism?

Passy, we have a different concept of “eternal”, and we seem to digress on the level of “vigilance” required to protect our democracy too. When solidarity with gay and lesbian rights becomes a compulsion in democracy, then you have lost the very basis of the freedom that democracy serves to protect.

TRTL

'Quite a good point there, HRS. Those who attempt to play the gay-sex-STD card should logically be in favour of same-sex marriage as it would reduce the number of sexual partners.'

Why would you Legitimize something that leads to so much disease and debauchery? It sends the totally wrong message to young kids who might want to risk experimenting with perversion.